IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.511 of 2011 1. SHANKAR SINGH S/O- LATE BECHU SINGH 2. GAYANAND SINGH, S/O- LATE RAMJEET SINGH 3. BAIJU SINGH @ BAIJNATH SINGH, S/O- LATE JUTOO SINGH, ALL R/O- VILLAGE BASAITI, P.S.- RANIGANJ (BOUSI) DISTRICT- ARARIA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ----------- 2 02.05.2011 Having perused the Trial Court judgment and paragraph 8 of the Appellate Court judgment, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration only on the question of sentence. Hence Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of parties, the application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Three petitioners herein along with two others stood charged under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 305 of 1987 of the Court of 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Araria. A dacoity was committed in the house of the informant (P.W. 3) wherein certain house hold articles including utensils and cloths were looted. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted leading to trial. At the trial, nine prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting diverse documents. So far as the petitioners are concerned, Exts-5, 5/1, 5/2 and 5/3 were produced to show recovery of stolen articles from their possession. Learned Court below found 2 that the deposition of P.W. 9, the B.D.O. who held the T.I.P. in the light of the deposition of the informant (P.W. 3) and his daughter (P.W. 9) proved the case against the petitioners. Seizure list witnesses were also produced but they turned hostile. However, they did not deny signature appearing on the seizure memos. On a consideration of the matter, they were held guilty under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 1995 was preferred. Learned Appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record confirmed the conviction and thereby dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and the trial consumed more than 08 years. From the Trial Court judgment, it would appear that the petitioners do not carry any criminal antecedent. Trial Court assessed them to be fairly young ones. It is submitted that the sentence imposed on them are too excessive and the petitioners deserve a lenient sentence for the proven charge. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that both the Courts below have found more than adequate evidence/circumstance/material against the petitioners and as such they were held guilty by the two Courts below. I have considered the submissions advanced on 3 behalf of the parties. From the Trial Court judgment, it appears that a submission was advanced that petitioners have no past conviction to their credits. The trial definitely protracted and consumed close to 08 years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as petitioners had to undergo diverse circumstances having telling effects on their mental and economical conditions. Petitioners were assessed aged between 25 to 35 years at the time of conviction. They must be now middle aged persons. It further appears that the appeal preferred by the petitioners also remained pending for close to 14 years. Considering all these factors appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that they deserve lesser quantum of sentence for the proved charge. According, while upholding conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced to R.I. for three and a half years (3 ½ years) under Section 412 IPC. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)