JUDGMENT A.K. Trivedi, J. While admitting the revision on 22.1.2003, it was confined only with regard to sentence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute is in between the spouses. Petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and was directed to undergo RI. for a year as well as also slapped with fine of Rs. 50001- in default thereof to additionally suffer imprisonment for three months by Sri Dina Nath Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna vide judgment dated 22.4.2000 passed in connection with G.R Case No. 4805 of 1994 arising out of Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 207/1994. 3. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Patna in Cr.Appea1 No. 104 of 2000 vide judgment dated 9.10.2002. 4. Apart from suffering distress, agony since 1994, it has also been submitted that the status of parties has been derecognized by a' decree of divorce dated 29.1.2004 in terms of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act in connection with Matrimonial Case No. 177 of 1997. Because of the fact that the marriage was dissolved on account of mutual consent, as a result of which both the parties are enjoying their life independently, a lenient view be taken. The aforesaid judgment has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. 5. The learned APP submitted that mere dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent is not going to exonerate the petitioner from criminal liability. Sentencing policy in usual way suggests infliction of sentence inconsonance with the nature of offence. However, in some cases, some sort of relaxation is found permitted to have an opportunity before the convict for correcting himself. 6. The object of punishment has been succinctly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England. (4th Edition: Your: para 482) thus: "The aims of punishment are now considered to be retribution, justice, deterrence, reformation and protection and modern sentencing policy reflects a combination of several or all of these aims. The retributive element is intended to show public revulsion to the offence and to punish the offender for his wrong conduct. The concept of justice as an aim of punishment means both that the punishment should fit the offence and also that like offences should receive similar punishments. The retributive element is intended to show public revulsion to the offence and to punish the offender for his wrong conduct. The concept of justice as an aim of punishment means both that the punishment should fit the offence and also that like offences should receive similar punishments. An increasingly important aspect of punishment is deterrence and sentences are aimed at deterring not only the actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from breaking the law. The importance of reform action of the offender is shown by the growing emphasis laid upon it by much modern legislation, but judicial opinion towards this particular aim is varied and rehabilitation will not usually be accorded precedence over deterrence. The main aim of punishment in judicial thought, however, is still the protection of society and the other objects frequently receive only secondary consideration when sentences are being decided". 7. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2006 (2) East Cr C 97 (SC) : (2006) 2 SCC 359 , the Court has observed thus: Para 7. "Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration" . In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 545 , while dealing with the philosophy of just punishment which is the collective cry of the society, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that just punishment would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors. 8. Taking into account the aforesaid consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court inconsonance with subsequent development as has been brought up on record by means of supplementary affidavit exposing dissolution of marriage in terms of mutual consent coupled with the fact that the litigation since 1994 is being carried on by the petitioner himself on account of his conviction and sentence by the learned trial Court and during intervening period the petitioner must have suffered anguish, pains, it looks expedient in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence as already undergone by the petitioner during the intervening period. With the aforesaid modification in sentence reducing it to the period already undergone instead of inflicted by the learned trial Court maintaining conviction. the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.