IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.392 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- M ADHEPURA

Kundan Kumar, Son of Sri Bindeshwari Mandal, Resident of Village Piprahi, P.S.
Gamharia, District Madhepura
…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kanchan Kumari (Devi), Wife of Kundan Kumar, D/o Yogendra Prasad
Mandal, Resident of Village Piprahi, P.S. Gamharia, District Madhepura, At
present Resident of Village Madhuban, P.S./District Madhepura
…. …. Respondents

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mushtaque Alam, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-12-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision

application against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016, passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2012

whereby he has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 15.09.2012, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Madhepura in Complaint

Case No.524 whereby finding the petitioner, Kundan Kumar-the husband,

guilty for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act sentenced him to undergo SI of two

years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and further one year of imprisonment

and fine of Rs.2000/- for committing offence under aforesaid sections

respectively however, directed that both sentences shall run concurrently

and in case of failure in depositing fine amount to further undergo SI of six
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.392 of 2017 dt.06-12-2017

2 /2

months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was forcibly married with the complainant after kidnapping him

and the girl was also mentally ill, so conviction is bad. However, there is no

such evidence on the record in support of the contention of the defence. No

evidence either oral or documentary was adduced that the petitioner was

married after kidnapping or complainant is mentally ill. In alternative

argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of

sentence should be reduced as the sentence is on the higher side i.e. of two

years and submits that already this petitioner has remained in custody in

totality approximately for 19 months.

4. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of

the records, the Court finds that t here is no ground for setting aside the

conviction and to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the courts.

However, the period of sentence is modified to the period already

undergone by the petitioner as he has remained in custody for

approximately 19 months.

5. Only with the modification in the period of sentence, this

revision application stands disposed of.

(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.12.2017
Transmission 11.12.2017
Date