IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.341 of 2010 1. SURAJ RAI, SON OF LATE BRAHMDEO RAI 2. GAUTAM RAI 3. GANESH RAI 4. RAMESH RAI ALL SONS OF SURAJ RAI, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SIKARPUR, P.O- KOREYA, P.S.- BHELDI, DISTRICT- SARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 25.06.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower Court records have already been received. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.9.1996 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran in G.R. no. 3439/87/Tr. No. 145/96 whereby petitioners herein have been convicted and sentenced for different periods under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no. 1 was found and held guilty under Sections 386 379, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years, 02 years, 06 months and 01 month respectively. Petitioner no. 2 was similarly found and held guilty under Sections 379, 323 and 341 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years, 06 months and one month respectively. Petitioner no. 3. was found and held guilty under Sections 386, 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years, 06 months and 01 month respectively. Petitioner no. 4 was held guilty under Sections 379, 323 and 341 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years, 06 months and 01 month respectively. Petitioners, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court, preferred Cr. Appeal no. 82 of 1996 (Suraj Rai and Ors versus State of Bihar). Learned Lower Appellate Court once again reappraised the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 and found them cogent and convincing. Submissions of the petitioners is that their evidence be discarded as there is/are materials on record indicating enmity between the parties. He next submitted that the evidence on record would indicate that parties are co-villagers and were engaged in litigation(s) from before. It is further contended that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 19.12.1987 and since then the petitioners herein were engaged in fighting litigation. It has been pointed out that learned Trial Court has recorded the submission of the petitioners that they were the first offenders. Fighting a criminal litigation for such a long period definitely tells upon the mental and economical conditions of the accused(s) which has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence upon the accused persons who have already been found and held guilty. Considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the following 3 sentences upon the petitioners shall sub-serve the ends of justice: Petitioner no. 1 is sentenced to undergo 02 years R.I. under Section 386 in place of 03 years as inflicted by the Courts below. Rest of the sentence imposed upon him under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code remain untouched. So far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the sentence imposed under Section 379 is reduced to 1 ½ years R.I. in place of 02 years. Rest of the sentences imposed upon him shall remain untouched. The sentence imposed upon petitioner no. 3 under Section 386 is reduced to 02 years R.I. in place of 03 years. Rest of the sentences imposed upon him shall remain untouched. So far petitioner no. 4 is concerned, the sentence imposed under Section 379 is reduced to 1 ½ years R.I. in place of 02 years. Rest of the sentences imposed upon him shall remain untouched. All these sentences shall run concurrently. With the aforesaid modification in their respective sentence(s), the revision application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )