Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 1087 of 2002 (An application Under Section 397 (i) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) =========================================================== 1. Awadhesh Kumar 2. Girdhar Kumar Both Sons of Sri Naumi Lal, Resident of Naya Gaon, P.S. Alamganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. For the Opposite Party : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2012 Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the State when the matter is taken up. This revision application is directed against the Appellate Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 1993 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna dated 06.09.1993 in Tr. No. 778 of 1993 (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 184/1990, G.R. No. 1704 of 1990) has been affirmed. The petitioners were convicted under [STATUTE] and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Earlier the case was admitted to hearing on the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1087 of 2002 dt.14-08-2012 2 / 2 2 point of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment impugned is not in accordance with law and is erroneous since the charge against the petitioners has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in which the benefit should go to the accused. In the absence of learned A.P.P. for the State, learned counsel for the petitioners has assisted this Court and has taken it through the impugned judgment, the trial Court judgment as well as the lower Court records. Upon going through the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, keeping in view the period the petitioners have been in custody, this Court is inclined to interfere in the order of sentence. Accordingly, this revision application is disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioners stand discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds and sureties. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 14th August, 2012 Anand Kr./NAFR (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 392

Statute Text:
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Robbery. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.