Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2002 In the matter of an application under Sections 397 of 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. =========================================================== Sanjay Singh, son of Ramshish Singh, resident of Vill. Bhairwar P.S. Muffasil Distt. Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opp. Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur with Mr. Nilesh Kumar with Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad and Mr. Dudhnath Singh, Advocates For the Opp. Party/s : Md. Fahimuddin, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2012 Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 27.06.2002 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999 by which the judgment and order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1997/ 2 of 1997, has been upheld. The petitioner along with others was charged under [STATUTE] . The trial court convicted him under the said sections and sentenced him to undergo Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1057 of 2002 dt.14-08-2012 2 rigorous imprisonment for three years under [STATUTE] and to rigorous imprisonment for six months under [STATUTE] . The appellate court has affirmed the said conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he fired but the same did not cause any injury rather it just brushed by the cheek one of the victims causing gun powder burns. Learned counsel submits that there is specific allegation of firing which has hit the victim with regard to other co-accused and the order giver is also someone else and not the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that under the circumstances and in view of the materials and evidence placed before the courts below, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. It is thus submitted that the order of conviction as well as sentence is erroneous. This Court has gone through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records and is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1057 of 2002 dt.14-08-2012 3 sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties. Patna High Court Dated 14th August, 2012 NAFR/Anjani/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.