RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2003 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No. 11 of 2000 whereby and where-under the petitioner no. 1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to various terms have been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the complainant after twenty-seven years of marriage had left her matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason and after three years she had filed a complaint case alleging that the petitioner no. 1 had solemnized second marriage with the petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel submits that in fact the complainant had fled away with one Munshi Prasad leaving behind four small children as well as the petitioner no. 1. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners be modified considering the fact that they are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000 and have also remained for a considerable length of time in custody. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.;