IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.570 of 2009 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA @ BRAJ BHUSHAN SHARMA S/O LATE RAJDEO SHARMA, R/O VILL. HAJIPUR P. S KAKO DIST. JEHANABAD. ----- PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 04 24.06.2009 Heard. Rule limited to question of sentence. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State waives the notice. With the consent of the parties, the revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The sole petitioner herein was charged under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two years R. I. under Section 304(A) of the Penal Code and Six months R.I. under Section 279 of the Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Jehanabad in Trial No. 03/99. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Petitioner filed appeal thereagainst vide Cr. Appeal No. 33/99/01/05 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2008. The prosecution case, briefly put, is that on 23.10.1991, the grand father of the informant was travelling in a Tata Maxi along with other passengers. Said Tata Maxi met with an accident and turned turtle causing his death. The allegation is/was that the petitioner, who was the driver of the said vehicle, had driven the vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner causing accident and thus death of his grand - 2 - father. Learned trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the allegations/charges made/framed against the petitioner stand proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the convictions, as noted above, were recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that admittedly, the petitioner was the first offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has imposed the maximum punishment(s) as provided under the Penal Provisions for which the petitioner was charged. It is further contended that the occurrence had taken place on 23.10.1991 and the judgment was rendered by the learned trial court on 27th September 1999. The petitioner was made to suffer on account of the pendency of the litigation which is a relevant factor for consideration while imposing sentence(s). It has further been submitted that the learned trial court in a very causal manner has observed that since the petitioner was found driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, he does not deserve leniency and is entitled to the maximum punishment as provided under the law. It is further stated that the petitioner is the first offender and the bread-earner for the family. Having considered the submissions and after going through the record, this court, is of the view that in the given fact situation the ends of justice shall sub serve if the petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304(A) of the Penal Code instead of (02) two years as awarded by the learned trial Court and affirmed in - 3 - appeal. No alteration in the conviction recorded under Section 279 of the Penal Code is called for. Other conditions of sentence(s) shall remain intact. The application is accordingly dismissed with modification in sentence as indicated above. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)