IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.74 of 2010 1. JAGARNATH DWIVDEI @ JAGARNATH MASTER @ JAGARNATH DUBEY 2. GOPAL DUBEY ALIAS GOPAL MASTER 3. DHARAMRAJ DWIVEDI ALIAS MUNNA DWIVEDI ALIAS MUNNA DUBEY 4. UMESH DUBEY -------------- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 27.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the State. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3.12.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2006 passed by Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 2, Buxar whereby and whereunder he has affirmed the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the trial court, that is, Shri Nagendra Prasad Tripathi, 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial no. 577 of 1992 with modification in sentence only with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from three years to two years for the offence under sections 324/149 IPC. By the trial court all the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 148 IPC. Petitioner no.4 Umesh Dubey was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three 2 years under section 324 IPC. Petitioners 1 to 3 were also further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under sections 324/149 IPC. In brief it is said that the informant Baikunth Bihari Dubey while was waiting for a Bus for Patna on main road of Ara Buxar, all the petitioners along with one Naramdeshwar Dubey (deceased) reached there. Petitioner no.1 exhorted to kill pointing his Bhala on the informant, thereupon petitioner no.4 blew his Farsa causing injury on left temporal region and palm. Naramdeshwar and Munna Dubey are alleged for continuously assaulting the informant by means of Lathi and another injury by means of Farsa was received by the informant on his right leg. Reason behind the incident is said the complaint of the informant about non-performance of his duty properly by petitioner Jagarnath Dwivdei which was taken for his transfer by his department. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners have been convicted for the offence under section 148 IPC. Petitioner no.4 Umesh Dubey was convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC. Petitioners 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence under 3 sections 324/149 IPC for the incident of the year 1985. It was act of petitioner no.4 if accepted, has made accused all the petitioners. One of the accused persons is dead now. Petitioners 1 and 2 became near about 82 and 80 years old respectively. No independent witness appeared to support the prosecution case even named in the F.I.R. by the informant himself. Injury was manufactured and report was managed. So only the doctor appeared to state about receiving the injuries and the I.O. for his examination but never can corroborate taking place of the incident nor that can be taken as ocular evidence. In the case, petitioners 1 and 2 remained in custody for about 25 days in course of trial and all the petitioners surrendered in the court below on 16.1.2010. So a liberal view can be taken on the point of sentence and that too to the period already undergone. Counsel for the informant is also there to oppose the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners but circumstances suggested and appeared in the case, in my view also appears convincing to give some liberty on the point of sentence. 4 Accordingly, this revision application is partly allowed on the point of sentence awarded to the petitioner nos.1 2 and 3 that is modified and minimized to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of petitioner no.4 namely, Umesh Dubey is reduced and minimized to six months from three years. The conviction of the petitioners is maintained with modification in sentence as mentioned above. The petitioner no.4 Umesh Dubey shall be released after serving sentence of six months. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)