SHAMBHU CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Bashistha Narayan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2000, whereby the appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing the appeal, has modified the sentence from two years as awarded by the trial court to one year.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record the death certificate of the petitioner no.4 (Motilal Chaudhary) who is stated to have deceased on 2.5.2010, i.e. during the pendency of the revision application and as a consequence this revision also stands dismissed against him. Thus presently the matter proceeds with respect to petitioner no.2 who happens to be the cousin brother -in -law of the daughter of the informant and the petitioner no.3, the mother -in -law of the daughter of the informant. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with reference to the judgment passed by the courts below has submitted that a compromise petition was filed before the trial court but since the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence the courts below did not act thereupon but while doing so, the appellate court has observed in paragraph 9 that the compromise would be kept in mind and it is in this background that the appellate court was pleased to modify the sentence from two years as awarded by the trial court to one year. He thus submits that for the sentence as it stands modified the petitioners have undergone incarceration for about 2 months and 15 days. He further submits that considering that the allegation was mainly directed towards the husband and considering that the parties had resolved to end the dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners to complete the remaining period of sentence.