IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1081 of 2010 SUBHASH MAHTO, SON OF LATE SITARAM MAHTO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MUSSALLAHPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, PATNA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner :Mr.Pramod Kumar For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari,APP ----------- 03. 03.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9.02.2010, passed by 8th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2000, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed with modification in sentence. For an occurrence that took place on 02.03.1994, petitioner along with others were tried for charges punishable under sections 341,323 and 337 IPC. Eight witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of materials placed on record, learned trial court in Trial No.111/2000 found and held that charges framed under sections 323 and 337 IPC were proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Two of the convicts were released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Petitioner was not granted the said privilege as he was found to have been previously convicted. It is to be noted here that learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo S.I. for six months and three months under sections 323 and 337 IPC respectively. The appellate court, on a re-consideration of materials available on record and keeping in view the fact that parties were related to each other - 2 - while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence(s), petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month under both counts. While assailing the sustainability of the impugned order/judgment, learned counsel submits that the parties are agnates and there is land dispute. It is contended that there is vital contradiction in the deposition of PWs so far as the manner in which the occurrence has taken place. On these submissions, it is contended that this Court may interfere with the order/judgment impugned. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is concurrent findings of guilt so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is next contended that he was rightly not given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as the petitioner was earlier found convicted for criminal offence. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order/judgment. There appears to be concurrent findings of guilt recorded by learned courts below. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any patent illegality in such consideration of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Consequently, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )