IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1446 of 2010 SANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM BHOJU PODDAR …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr. M. K. Sinha For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 30.09.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is now being disposed of finally. In view of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this Court does not deem it appropriate to set out in detail the relevant facts leading to the present proceeding. Petitioner was charged under diverse sections including sections 147 and 148 IPC and tried by learned court below vide Trial Case No.85/2003. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record, he was held guilty under sections 147 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under each count. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.106 of 2003 which was heard and dismissed. It is contended that as per the prosecution case, the occurrence had taken place sometime in the year 1991. Both the parties are neighbours. The trial of the petitioner consumed more 2 than 12 years. For all these years, he reeled under the threat of being punished. Learned trial court did not find any previous criminal antecedent of the petitioner. At the time of recording conviction he was found aged about 50 years. It is thus contended that by now he is fairly old person. On the strength of these facts appearing from records, it has been contended that the sentence recorded against the petitioner is excessive. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the two impugned orders. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be interfered with, particularly when they have not been shown to be perverse. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Petitioner had to undergo the agony of trial for about 12 years. Definitely, by now, he is close to 70 years. Materials indicate that both the prosecution and the accused are neighbours. Learned trial court has found that there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. Having regard to these facts appearing from records and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is satisfied that ends of justice shall be subserved if a lessor punishment is imposed. Consequently, while upholding the conviction recorded under sections 147 and 148, the sentence of R.I. for one year is reduced to R.I. for one month. Other part(s)/condition(s) 3 shall remain untouched/unchanged. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )