IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1426 of 2010 RAMESHWAR MAHTO S/O GUDRI MAHTO --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ---OPP. PARTY. ----------- 03 04.10.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. On 26.02.1994 at about 5. 30 p.m. Madan Yadav (victim), son of the informant (not examined), was found going on road riding on back of she- buffalo. It has been alleged that as the son of the informant was crossing through the Bisfi chowk a G.T. bus coming from opposite direction driven by the driver rashly and negligently dashed against she- buffalo, as a result whereof, the son of the informant fell down and became senseless. He was brought to hospital where he was declared dead. At the trial 05 witnesses were examined. As noticed above, the informant as well as the Investigating Officer could not be examined in the case. Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, learned trial Court has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s), and accordingly he was held guilty under Sections 279,304A of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for 02 years respectively, by judgment and order dated 15th March, 2004 passed in T.R.No. 1325 of 2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment petitioners preferred Cr. 2 Appeal no. 3 of 2004/7 of 2007. On a rescanning of the evidence on record, learned lower appellate Court by judgment dated 15.04.2010 affirmed the said judgment and order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt in absence of the informant and the Investigating Officer. It is next contended that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 26.02.1994. The conviction was initially recorded in the year 2004. Petitioner was not found having been previously convicted for any criminal offence. At the time of conviction, he was found aged 50 years. On these facts appearing from record, it has been contended that petitioner deserves lesser punishment. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. It is contended that learned trial Court referred to and relied upon the evidence of 04 witnesses besides the evidence of the Doctor in order to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s). It is contended that the evidence was rescanned by the lower appellate Court whereafter the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed by learned trial Court. It is thus contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt which cannot be said to be wholly perverse and as such this Court may not interfere with these findings. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Learned trial Court has carefully analyzed the evidence of PWs 1,2,3 and 4, and has come to the conclusion that their testimonies 3 proved the guilt. This finding has been rescanned and confirmed by learned lower appellate Court. This Court is, thus, not inclined to interfere with the findings of guilt so recorded by the two Courts below. One aspect of the matter, however, needs consideration. The occurrence had taken place on 26.02.1994. Petitioner had to face the ordeal/agony of trial for nearly 10 years. Fighting a criminal litigation for such a long time is shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). It further appears that he was engaged in profession and thereby earning for his family. Definitely he was aged about 50 years of age at the time of recording conviction. By now he must be close to 60 years. As stated by learned counsel, the petitioner is well tethered to the family. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the findings of guilt, this Court reduces the sentence awarded under Section 304A of the Penal Code from R.I. for 02 years to R.I. for 09 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain unaltered/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)