IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.287 of 2010 BINOD PASWAN S/O- SUBODH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HUSAINPUR, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUSHIL YADAV S/O- JIWACHH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAMALPUR, P.S.- RAHIKA DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. For the petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5 20.07.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice. Lower Courts records have already been received. Heard. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage itself. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the order this Court proposes to pass, it is neither advisable nor necessary to delineate all the relevant facts in detail giving rise to this revision application. For an occurrence that had taken place on 28.5.97, an F.I.R. was lodged which ultimately gave rise to Trial no. 195 of 1997 in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani wherein charges under sections 323, 341, 504 and 325 of Indian Penal Code were framed. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses. On a consideration thereof, learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for diverse periods. 2 Under Section 325 IPC he was sentenced to under R.I. for 03 years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, petitioner filed Cr. Appeal no. 13 of 2005. Learned appellate court on a re-consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges framed under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of those charges. Learned appellate court, however, found sufficient evidence on record justifying his conviction under Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction recorded thereunder was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of recording conviction, the petitioner was found aged about 27 years. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, he was just 19 years of age. It is the contention that owing to dispute relating to ploughing of field, the occurrence had taken place. According to him, there was no pre-planning for the occurrence. It is next contended that learned Trial Court has found that the petitioner is a first offender as no previous conviction was found recorded against him. It is his submission that these factors definitely call for a lesser punishment so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand supporting the impugned judgments, submits that there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to guilt of the petitioner which do not suffer from 3 any patent illegality and require any interference. This Court on a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record including the two judgments finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It further appears that the trial consumed 08 years. Fighting criminal litigation for such a long time on the threat of being punished is a relevant consideration and I am thus satisfied that a lesser punishment shall meet the ends of justice. Consequently the sentence of 03 years R.I. recorded under Section 325 IPC is reduced to 01 year R.I. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )