IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1258 of 2010 DEV NARAYAN SAHNI …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan & :Mr. Irshad For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 26.10.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of. Petitioner was tried and convicted for offences punishable under sections 279,337 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months, S.I. for six months and S.I for one and a half years respectively. The occurrence had taken place on 30.11.2000. Four-year-old daughter of the informant (P.W.1) was run over by a bus as a result whereof she died instantaneously. Petitioner was apprehended and tried for the said charge(s). At the trial, two witnesses were examined. Informant herself examined as P.W.1, whereas P.W.2 (husband of the informant) was also examined who supported the prosecution case, as spelt out by the informant in her deposition. Learned trial court on a careful appraisal of evidence and materials on record including oral evidence found the testimony 2 of P.W.1 trustworthy and unblemished. P.W.1 in her cross- examination eloquently gave reasons for identifying the petitioner at the dock. Consequently, learned trial court found that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 14/06. Learned lower appellate court (F.T.C.-II, Samastipur) by judgment dated 29.05.2010 dismissed the appeal after re-scanning the materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the evidence of P.W.1 was not sufficient and convincing enough to implicate the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. I have perused the judgment of the trial court. Paragraph 8 deals with the evidence of P.W.1. From perusal of the same, it appears that reasons/circumstances indicated by this P.W. in order to claim identification of the petitioner as the driver of bus which ran over the daughter of the informant has been accepted by the trial court and affirmed in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the occurrence had taken place on 30.11.2000 and petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for about six years. Learned trial court convicted him for the said charges in the year 2006. It is contended that fighting litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment. It is next contended that at the time of recording conviction he was found aged about 65 years. It is further stated that petitioner is now aged about 70 years and has left the 3 profession of driving commercial vehicle and is confined to his house. This Court finds force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that fighting criminal litigation have manifold exasperating effects. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 65 years. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lessor punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly while upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned lower appellate court, the sentence recorded under section 304A IPC is reduced to S.I. for nine months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )