CRIMINAL REVISION No.55 OF 2002 Against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2001 passed by Sr. Bishundeo Dutta Jha, Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 1995/45 of 2001 modifying the judgment passed by Sri Prakash Kumar Sharma, J. M. Ist Class, Sheohar, Sitmarhi in G.R. No. 648 of 1992/Tr. No. 173 of 1995. ************* 1. BASUDEO SAHANI 2. URMILA DEVI ………………………. PETITIOENRS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………………… OPPOSITE PARTY ******** For the Petitioners :- Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, Sr.Advocate ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S.K. Sharma, J. This revision application has been admitted on 22.1.2002 for hearing on the question of sentence only. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. I, Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1995/45 of 2001 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed with slight modification in the sentence dated 7.8.1995 passed by the J. M. Ist Class, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in GR No. 648 of 1992/Tr. No. 173 of 1995. The trial court has found the petitioners guilty and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The - 2 - appellant no. 1 was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellate court made some modification in the sentence under section 354 of the IPC and sentence of one year was reduced to six months R.I. and other sentences of both the petitioners were left intact. On the statement of informant Indu Devi, Parihar P.S. Case No. 72 of 1992 dated 24.9.1992 was registered against the petitioners under sections 341, 33, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the case was found true and charge sheet was submitted. The case was based on the statement of the informant Indu Devi. According to the informant, she had gone to scrap grass with her she goat. Her she goat intruded into the field of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no. 1 caught the informant and took her to the door and the got was also taken. The petitioner no. 1 tried to outrage the modesty of the informant. The petitioner no. 1 also assaulted the informant by bamboo stick and petitioner no. 2 also assaulted her by leg on her abdomen and other parts of the body. On her cry witnesses have come and saw the occurrence and rescued her. At the time of occurrence the informant was having pregnancy of five months. The trial proceeded and the trial court believed the evidences of the prosecution and hold the petitioners guilty. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW 1 is Mahendra Das, PW 2 is Pawan Kumar Paswan and PW 3 is the informant. PW 4 is Chandeshwar Prasad and PW 5 is Dr. Anju Singh. - 3 - The PW 4 has proved the writing of formal FIR (Ext-1) and endorsement of FIR was marked as Ext-2. He has proved the injury report which was marked as Ext-3. PW 4 is a formal witness. PW 5 has examined the informant and found her pregnant having five months of pregnancy. She was having some problem and the doctor has proved the factum of assault. The courts below by concurrent finding of fact and law came to the opinion that on the date and time of occurrences the petitioners have committed various overt acts as a result thereof the informant has received injuries. The courts below have also found that the petitioner no. 1 has tried to outrage the modesty of the informant. I have analyzed the evidences of the prosecution and after hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. So, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the facts which has been given by the both the courts below. However, on the question of sentence it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is of the year 1992 and it as an act which was not premeditated. The petitioners by passage of time became of advance age and no useful purpose will be served if they are further forced to go in prison. Accordingly, prayer has been made to modify the sentences of the petitioners. I am satisfied that due to passage of time sentences should be modified. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners is modified to the extent that the period undergone by the petitioners in custody during trial, - 4 - appeal and revision shall be deemed to be sufficient for the ends of justice. In the result this revision application is dismissed with the modification in the sentrence. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated 16th April, 2008 N.A.F.R./avin.