IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.487 of 2011 MEGHNATH SINGH @ MEGHNATH MANDAL, SON OF BIDYA MANDAL R/O- VILLAGE ADARSH, GRAM TIKARAMPUR, P.S- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- MUNGER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 26.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of parties, the application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein was tried vide Tr. No. 990 of 2008 for charge punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act for possessing two country made pistols which was/were recovered on a search made of the house of the petitioner on 25.10.2000. At the trial, five P.Ws were examined besides exhibiting documents including material exhibits to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the material, learned Trial Court found that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have consistently supported the prosecution case. One of the independent witnesses, in whose presence seizure was made, was also produced as P.W. 4 but was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. However, it appears that the said witness has not denied his L.T.I./signature on the seizure memo. Accordingly, the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 02 years and S.I. for 01 year with fine having default clause 2 under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2009. Learned Lower Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and found the conviction based on evidence on record which were adequate/sufficient to prove the charge(s). Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 25.10.2000 and the trial consumed more than 08 years. There is no indication about his past conviction recorded either by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. At the time of recording conviction, the Trial Court assessed him aged about 40 years. It is thus submitted that the petitioner deserves a lesser quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt record by the two Courts below which are based on appraisal of material/evidence on record which cannot be termed as perverse and/or patently illegal. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It appears from the two judgments as well as the submissions of the Counsel that the petitioner had to undergo rigours/ordeal of trial for close to 08 years. Appeal of the petitioner also consumed more than two years. 3 Fighting criminal litigation for a long time has a telling effect on the mental and economical condition of the litigant. This is a shade of punishment. This Court does not find either from the Trial Court judgment or Appellate Court judgment that there has been past conviction found/recorded against the petitioner. This Court is thus satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a lesser quantum of sentence would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court, the sentence awarded under Section 25(1-B)a is reduced to one and a half years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)