MAHESH GIRIDHARI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on similar set of allegations, other accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court but the said benefit was not given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was also acquitted for the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and since the demand of dowry itself was not proved by the prosecution, no offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC can be sustained. It has also been submitted that several contradictions have come in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the defence. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for five months and he is facing the prosecution since the year 1998 and therefore if the order of conviction is not interfered with, then at least order of sentence may be reduced considering the said fact.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.