Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mokhtar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1997 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh on 06.09.1997 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with G. R. Case no. 561 of 1996 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the learned trial court nor the learned appellate court had properly appreciated the materials available on record before convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Leaned counsel submits that the torture has not been proved. It has been stated that the evidence of the defence witnesses have not been considered by the learned courts below as it could clearly be deciphered that no allegation of torture had been levelled by the informant in the presence of eminent persons of the community. An alternative argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modified considering the long pendency of the prosecution against the petitioner.;