IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.190 of 2011 MD. SAMSOOL MIYAN @ SAMSOOL SON OF ABID MIYAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THUMHA, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT SUPAUL …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 03. 11.04.2011 Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the appellate order dated 7th July, 2010, passed on Cr. Appeal No.02/2010 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Supaul, whereby the appeal has been dismissed but with modification in sentence. For an occurrence that had taken place on 14.03.2008, an FIR was drawn under sections 452 and 380 IPC. leading to trial. At the trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Learned trial court found that the informant(P.W.5) has been fully supported by her daughter (P.W.6) and at least two independent witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who arrived at the place of occurrence on ‘Hulla’ and witnessed the scene. Accordingly, he was held guilty under section 380 IPC, vide Tr. No.911/2010 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine. The petitioner was, however, acquitted of the charge punishable under section 452 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2010, he preferred appeal which was considered and rejected. Learned appellate court while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence from R.I. for three years to R. I. for two years with fine having 2 default clause. On perusal of the two judgments on record, this Court is of the view that the courts below have not committed any patent illegality in consideration of the matter meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )