IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1608 of 2009 Om Prakash Gupta son of Basudeo Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Katra Baradari, Police Station- Bhagwan Bazar, Dist.- Saran at Chapra. …Informant—Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Uma Shankar Prasad son of Binda Prasad 3. Ramjee Mishra, son of late Jai Govind Mishra 4. Suresh Prasad, son of late Raghunath Prasad All opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are residents of Mohalla- Katra Bazadari , P.S. Bhagan Bazar, Dist- Saran at Chapra. .. Accused.. opposite parties. ------ For the petitioner ;Mrs.Veena Kumar Jaiswal,Adv. :Mr. Upendra Prasad, Adv. :Mrs. Chandrakala Jaiswal, Adv. For the State :Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP. ----------- 2. 17.11.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2009 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 7.4.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in G. R. No. 3550 of 2004, Trial No. 81 of 2009 has been confirmed but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment has been reduced to fine only. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.10.2004 the informant was returning home with his son on bicycle after closing his shop situated at Mohalla Lal Bazar Salempur. 2 When he reached near Rajendra Stadium at about 8.20 P.M., he noticed that accused opposite parties are standing by concealing themselves. Accused Suresh Prasad called him by his name but the informant ignored but in the meantime the accused surrounded the informant and his son and gave fist blow and the informant fell down. When they tried to stand Uma Shankar Prasad gave knife blow on his chest but it hit on his thigh. The accused Suresh Prasad and Ramjee Mishra took out Rs.1600/-. After hearing hulla, some persons came there, thereafter all the three accused fled away on their motor- cycle. The informant and his son went to Sadar hospital for their treatment. On the basis of fard beyan of the informant, Bhagwan Bazar P. S. Case No. 225 of 2004 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 324, 341,379/34 I.P.C. Uma Shankar Prasad @ Pappu was held guilty under Section 324 and 341 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under each sections and both the sentences to run concurrently and in default of 3 payment fine two months further rigorous imprisonment. Accused Ramjee Mishra and Suresh Prasad were held guilty under Section 341 I.P.C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, six days imprisonment by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 7.4.2009. Thereafter, the accused filed Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2009. The learned appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and the appeal was dismissed but the sentence passed by the learned trial court was modified. The sentence of Uma Shankar Prasad was reduced to a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 and a fine of Rs.300 under Section 341 I.P.C. The sentence of accused Ramjee Mishra and Suresh Prasad was also reduced to a fine of Rs.350/- each under Section 341 I.P.C. It was also found that Rs.1500/- has been deposited by the accused- appellant and as such they were set at liberty and also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction of the appellants 4 has been confirmed by the appellate Court as such there is no justification for reducing the sentence given by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court that it was the first offence of the accused. There is no material on record to show that they are habitual offender, as such the learned appellate court has modified the sentence of the accused- opposite parties and no interference in the impugned order is required by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the judgment of both the courts below it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. There is no material on record to show that the accused had any criminal antecedent. It appears from the judgment of the trial court that it was the first offence of the accused and the appellate court has also held that there is no material on record to show that the accused are habitual offender. Considering the facts and circumstances learned appellate court has 5 reduced the sentence of the accused imposed by the learned trial court. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)