IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.832 of 2002 Raman Singh son of Ram Binay Singh R/o village Fatehpur, P.S. Sheohar, Dist. Sitamarhi….Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …………………Opposite Party. ------------ 4 12.12.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 passed by learned F.T.C. No. I in Cri. Appeal No. 70/95/4 of 2001 by which the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the sentence from six months to four months for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian penal Code. Heard. From perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner and the co-accused Radheshyam Singh were convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.1995 in G.R. No. 1457 of 1990, Trial No. 45 of 1995 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial both the accused have been found guilty by the learned trial court and on the question of sentence co-accused Radheshayam Singh was directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 25000/- for maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year and considering the role of the petitioner for the offence he was sentenced to S.I. for one month under section 341 and R.I. for three months under section 323 and six months under section 379 I.P.C. and one month under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences to run 2 concurrently. Thereafter both the convict filed Cri. Appeal No. 70 of 1995. After hearing both the parties the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal reducing the sentence of six months under section 379 of the I.P.C. to four months and other sentences remain unchanged. It appears that the occurrence has taken place on 12.11.1990 and more than 21 years have passed. Petitioner has also been in custody for about two weeks. He has no criminal antecedent. He has been suffering very mental agony for a long period. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the period of sentence should be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. With the above modification in the sentence this application is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)