CRIMINAL REVISION No.184 OF 2002 Against the judgment dated 29.1.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 1999 by Sri Arun Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Vth, Darbhanga affirming the judgment with modification dated 31.8.1999 passed in T.R. No. 333 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga. **************** 1. GANESHI CHAUPAL 2. GOBARDHAN CHAUPAL 3. SHIVJEE CHAUPAL 4. BIGUL CHAUPAL 5. RUDAL CHAUPAL 6. LALIT CHAUPAL 7. LAKHRA CHAUPAL @ LUKHRA CHAUPAL ……………………………………………….. PETITIOENRS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………………….……………….OPPOSIT PARTY. ************* For the petitioners :- None For the State :- Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate (APP) ********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S.K. Sharma, J. No body appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls. Learned APP is present who has assisted this court. This revision application has been admitted for hearing on the question of sentence only so this application is being disposed of after hearing the learned APP and after perusal of the records. Altogether seven persons named above have filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vth, Darbhanga by which he has affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.8.199 passed in T.R. No. 333 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Darbhanga with modification against petitioner no. 7 to execute bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to maintain peace for a period of two years and - 2 - had awarded one month simple imprisonment on each count for the offences punishable under sections 147, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code to petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7, namely, Ganeshi Chaupal, Shivjee Chaupal, Lalit Chaupal and Lakhra Chaupal @ Lukhra Chaupal respectively and petitioner no. 2 Gobardhan Chaupal was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offences punishable under sections 147, 323 and 341 and three months for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner no. 4 has been sentenced to undergo one month S.I. for the offence under section 341, and three months S.I. for the offences under sections 147, 324, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 5 was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and three months for the offence under sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially a complaint case was filed before the C.J.M., Darbhanga vide Complaint Case No. 476 of 1995 alleging therein that the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 were convicted on 2.6.1995 in Tr. No. 480 of 1995 in the case filed by the complainant and for that reason on 14.7.1995 on 6.00 P.M. near the house of the accused persons the complainant was surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons and petitioner no. 2 took out Rs. 6,000/- from the pocket and petitioner no. 4 snatched HMT Kohinoor wrist watch from the complainant. Petitioner No. 5 opened fire. In support of the case six witnesses were examined and injury report, complaint petition and copy of judgment dated 23.6.1995 passed in Trial No. 480 of 1995 were exhibited and marked as Ext.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The defence has examined three witnesses. DW 1 Basudeo Chaupal, DW 2 Lakhan Das and DW 3 Satya Narain Kumar. The defence has - 3 - got exhibited FIR of Baheri P.S. Case No. 11 of 1994 dated 11.6.1994 as Ext- A, Order of Cr. Rev. No. 1865 of 1995 dated 11.7.1995 as Ext-B, Order of Cr. Rev. No. 186 of 1995 dated 28.6.1996 as Ext-B/1, Judgment of T.R. No. 661 of 1987 as Ext-C and Order dated 19.6.1995 passed under section 83 of the Cr.P.C. by S.D.M., Darbhanga as Ext-D. After conviction, the petitioners preferred appeal and the appellate court affirmed the judgment with modification mentioned above. I have perused the entire record. It appears that all the petitioners have been convicted by the concurrent finding of facts by both the courts and courts have applied their mind and they have discussed the evidences in detail and have considered the defence of the petitioners also. There is concurrent finding of the facts and both the courts found that on the date and time of occurrence the petitioners have committed offence and they have rightly been held guilty by the courts below. In my view the judgment of the courts below does not require any interference and the judgment of the courts below are correct. However, on the question of sentence it can be said that petitioners have remained in custody during various period when the case remained pending before the trial court, appellate court and before the revisional court and they have undergone custody for different time. In my view the case is of 1995 and no useful purpose shall be served if the petitioners are forced to go jail. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners are modified to the extent that the period under undergone by them during trial, appeal and during revision shall be deemed to be sufficient for the ends of justice. - 4 - Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated 23rd May, 2008. N.A.F.R./ avin.