RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.02.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2005 by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the judgment dated 12.01.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 32/2001 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed albeit Section 4 of the D.P. Act in which the petitioner was acquitted, the petitioner has preferred the present application.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the complainant who has been examined as P.W.1 has stated about a demand made from her father but her father who has been examined as P.W.2 has denied such attempt made by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the main grudge of the complainant seems to be of not getting her name entered in the Service Book of the petitioner as a nominee and only in order to pressurize the petitioner the case under section 498A has been instituted. It has also been submitted that most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related to the complainant and therefore they being interested witnesses their evidence cannot be said to be trustworthy. It has further been submitted that although the allegations against all the accused persons were same and similar but while giving the benefit of doubt to the other accused persons only the petitioner has been convicted. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modify considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time and is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2001.;