IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1384 of 2009 1. JANESHWAR RAM 2. SUKHDEO RAM 3. MADAN RAM 4. SRI RAM --------------PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha-2 Dr. Ravindra Kumar and Arvind Pd.Singh For the State: Mr. Nitya Nand Tewari, A.P.P. 3 8.9.2009 This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2008 passed in Cr.Appeal no. 127/94/192/87 by Sri Shambhu Nath Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad affirming the judgment and order dated 3.8.1987 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad in Tr.No. 571 of 1987 arising out of Complaint Case No. 6 of 1985 whereby petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each. While making submission, learned counsel for the petitioners centralised himself on the point of sentence and on that point his submission is that all the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under sections 147, 323 and 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo - 2 - one year for each offence. Quarrel, if any, cropped up, was due to construction of drainage. All the petitioners along with co-accused Rampati Ram and Ram Govind Ram have been alleged for causing injury by means of lathi. Rampati Ram is the assailant of the complainant causing injury on the knee joint is found grievous while no injuiry caused by Ram Govind Ram is found grievous. Both co- accused are dead now and have not been made party to this revision application. As about these petitioners, they are assailants of Sikandar Ram causing injury on his middle finger which is found grievous and for that they all remained in custody for near about five months during trial and are in custody since 15.8.2009 after filing of this revision petition which can be observed sufficient towards sentence. This much of contention is though opposed but learned APP failed to point out any serious allegation against any of the petitioners. Incident is of the year 1984. Petitioners are facing prosecution since 1985. If that is taken into consideration in face of injury caused by the - 3 - petitioners and period of custody undergone, in my view, also that is sufficient towards their sentence. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, the aforesaid order of conviction passed by the court below is affirmed after dismissing this revision petition that is modified on the point of sentence observing the period of sentence undergone by the petitioners sufficient towards their sentence as petitioners are in jail custody, so they are ordered to be released at once from custody, if not required in any other case. As prayed for, let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI