JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/08/2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Rangia in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2006. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the SDJM in GR Case No. 718/03, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s 498 A IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. As per prosecution case, the petitioner Mina Begum (PW 2) was married to the present petitioner on 2/6/2001. Since after marriage, she was subjected to torture and harassment on demand of money and ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial home. Mina Begum lodged an FIR with the Officer-in Charge, Goreswar Police Station. On the basis of said FIR, police registered a case and after usual investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the present revision petitioner u/s 498 A IPC and eventually he stood trial for the offence u/s 498-A IPC. 3. In course of trial, prosecution examined four witnesses to establish the charge. Accused also examined four witnesses, including himself in support of his defence and on appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused/petitioner u/s 498-A IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was made over to the Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Choudhury for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent. 7. Mr. Choudhury submits that the evidence brought on record were not adequate to bring home a charge u/s 498-A IPC and therefore, the impugned judgment and sentence warrants interference by this Court. Learned Addl. P.P. supporting the impugned judgment contended that the judgment did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by this revisional court. 8. From the submissions of learned counsel, it appears that no legal or jurisdictional issue has been raised in the instant case. Learned Addl. P.P. supporting the impugned judgment contended that the judgment did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by this revisional court. 8. From the submissions of learned counsel, it appears that no legal or jurisdictional issue has been raised in the instant case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence was not sufficient to bring home a charge u/s 498-A IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, basically the challenge against the impugned judgment in this revision petition relates to the facts, more particularly as to the adequacy of evidence. It is the settled position of law that a revisional court is not supposed to dislodge the factual findings arrived at concurrently by the trial court as well the appellate court, unless the findings of fact are found to be perverse causing gross miscarriage of justice. It needs no mention that power of the revisional court cannot be equated with the appellate court. Although the appellate court, being the last court of fact, is empowered to re-appreciate the evidence for coming to its own decision, the revisional court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence to dislodge the concurrent factual findings of the courts below. Even if two views are possible, the revisional court cannot substitute its own view for the views taken by the courts below. 9. The Apex Court in Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Others reported in 2015 3 SCC 123 held that the revisional power of the court u/s 397 to 401 CPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of revisional power. 10. Keeping the view the above principles, let me go through the evidence adduced by the parties. 11. The PW 2, the victim in her evidence, stated that on the first night of marriage her husband expressed his displeasure for insufficient dowry and after few days, he demanded Rs. 2 lakhs and also a scooter from her parents. She informed her father, who paid Rs. 11. The PW 2, the victim in her evidence, stated that on the first night of marriage her husband expressed his displeasure for insufficient dowry and after few days, he demanded Rs. 2 lakhs and also a scooter from her parents. She informed her father, who paid Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing a scooter. As the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was not met, she was physically tortured and on one night her husband compelled her to put her signature on a blank paper. When initially she refused, the petitioner pressed her neck and she was compelled to put her signature on such paper. She also stated that subsequently also, he took her signature forcefully on a stamp paper to prepare an undertaking that she would not have any objection in second marriage of the petitioner. It was stated by her that she was very often subjected to physical assault on trivial matters. On 27/07/2003 when her elder sister and brother-in-law came to her house, the accused misbehaved them and when she raised objection, the petitioner assaulted her in their presence. She further deposed, that on 28/7/2003 when her parents came to her house, he snatched away her child and also insulted her parents by saying that an insane girl had been given in marriage to him. PW 1, the father of the victim and PW 3 also stated in their evidence regarding physical and mental torture by the petitioner on demand of money. The evidence of PW 2 the victim with regard to demand of money and mental and physical torture meted out to her seems to be supported by PW 1 & PW 3. 12. Although some discrepancies here and there have been noticed and pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, such discrepancies were not capable of creating any dent in the prosecution case, when by and large the testimony of the witnesses did not suffer from any gross infirmity. Accused had also examined four defence witnesses and the case sought to be projected by the defence witness basically revolves around the fact that the victim was suffering from mental disease and she was unwilling to continue the conjugal life and she was under treatment for psychiatric disease for a long time. Accused had also examined four defence witnesses and the case sought to be projected by the defence witness basically revolves around the fact that the victim was suffering from mental disease and she was unwilling to continue the conjugal life and she was under treatment for psychiatric disease for a long time. It was also stated by DWs that the victim was indifferent to her marrital life and she used to stay most of the time in her parents house. The defence evidence adduced through PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 sought to make out a case, that the victim was a mental patient and was not capable of maintaining marital life. Though the defence witnesses did not state specifically as regards the torture, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that father of the victim was compelled to give undertaking for taking the victim to his house seems to be supported by the defence witnesses. The fact of taking written undertaking from the father of the victim is admitted by the petitioner (DW1) himself. The conduct of the petitioner/husband to ask his father-in-law to give undertaking in presence of the villagers, for the purpose of taking the victim to his home for treatment, clearly suggests that the relationship of the petitioner with his wife was strained. Though the petitioner, through defence witnesses sought to project the victim to be a psychiatric patient, that cannot be a ground for ill-treating his wife by the petitioner. 13. Having gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the findings of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court holding the accused guilty of committing offence u/s 498-A IPC cannot be held to have suffered from any glaring illegality causing miscarriage of justice. I also do not find that the courts below arrived at the finding of guilt of the accused ignoring any vital evidence on record. Since the evidence on record establishes the charge against the petitioner and the impugned judgment did not suffer from perversity or any irregularity or glaring illegality causing miscarriage of justice, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment. 14. Since the evidence on record establishes the charge against the petitioner and the impugned judgment did not suffer from perversity or any irregularity or glaring illegality causing miscarriage of justice, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his second limb of argument contended, that considering the fact that the occurrence took place nearly 15 years ago and the accused/petitioner was also in judicial custody for some time during investigation and trial as well as the nature of offence, some leniency should be shown to the petitioner with regard to quantum of sentence. 15. Evidently the occurrence took place in 2003 and the accused/petitioner has been facing protracted trial for last 15 years and he was also behind the bar for some days at the initial stage. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the submission made by Mr. Choudhury merits consideration. 16. As the accused had already spent some days in jail, I am of the view, that sending him to jail again at this stage after 15 years, when both the accused and the victim are well-placed in the society, would not sub-serve any cause of justice. Thus, having considered the whole gamut of the matter, I feel, that it will meet the ends of justice, if the sentence of imprisonment of the accused/petitioner is reduced to the period which the accused/petitioner had already undergone. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period which the petitioner had already undergone in jail. So far the sentence of fine is concerned, no interference is called for. 17. With the above modification in quantum of substantive sentence of imprisonment, the revision petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court and deposit the fine within three months or serve out the default sentence imposed therefor. 18. Send back the LCR.