IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.243 of 2011 1. YUGAL KISHOR SINGH S/O- LATE DHARMADEO SINGH 2. SURENDRA SINGH, S/O- LATE BHUNESHWAR SINGH 3. BABAN SINGH, S/O- LATE KAPIL DEO SINGH 4. SHAILENDRA SINGH, S/O- LATE KEWAL SINGH ALL R/O- VILLAGE – ITAHARI, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Das, Advocate For the State: Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP ----------- 2 28.02.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.1.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1 Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 79 of 2003 whereby on a consideration of the materials on record, the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction dated 8.7.2003 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Chapra in Tr. No. 401 of 2003 has been affirmed. Trial Court found and held the petitioners guilty under Sections 147, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six (06) months with fine having default clause under each count. According to the F.I.R., on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 13.10.1998 at 3 p.m., the informant (P.W. 1) was engaged in - 2 - overseeing construction of his Rice Mill building. This was objected to by the accused persons. They demanded measurement which was also done whereafter it was found that construction was being made on the land belonging to the informant. It is the prosecution case that again the accused persons armed with various weapons objected to such construction which was again objected to by the informant whereafter co-accused Surendra Singh gave orders for assault. Accused Suresh Singh (not the petitioners) caught hold of the informant and petitioner No. 3 (Baban Singh) assaulted him with lathi. The son of the informant (P.W. 2) arrived at the scene of the occurrence and tried to save his father but accused Raj Narayan Singh (not the petitioner) caught hold of him and accused Surendra Singh (petitioner No. 2) and petitioner no. 4 assaulted him with lathi rendering him badly injured. It is further the prosecution case that accused Bhulan Singh (not the petitioner) and petitioner No. 1 assaulted Mithilesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) with lathi. Further, accused Surendra Singh and Shailendra Singh (petitioner Nos. 2 and 4) snatched wrist watches from the hands of Kaushlendra singh and Mithilesh Kumar Singh. It is alleged that witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution examined five witnesses besides exhibiting documents in order to substantiate the charge. On a perusal of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court found - 3 - and held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s). It was further found that non-examination of I.O. and the doctor has not caused any prejudice as the oral evidence of the prosecution was/were consistent. Aggrieved over said order, the appeal was preferred which stood dismissed as noted above. Learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions in support of the present application. It is submitted that there has been delay of few days in filing the F.I.R. and that only interested witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution. Learned Trial Court has dealt with all the issues and has recorded a finding that the oral evidence is cogent and consistent and as such they cannot be brushed aside. It has further been found that non-examination of I.O. has not prejudiced the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that in view of the case spelt out in the F.I.R., it would appear that both the parties are the villagers and dispute related to title/possession of a piece of land. It is next contended that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1998 and the trial consumed more than five years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a relevant consideration as during this period, the petitioners had to face the vagaries of trial. Referring to the Trial Court’s judgment, it is submitted that the petitioners have not been found carrying any criminal antecedents. It is thus - 4 - contended that in view of these facts available on record, the petitioners deserve a lesser quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below which cannot be said to perverse and/or interfered with on merit. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the materials on record. Submission of the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case, they deserve consideration on the quantum of sentence have some force. It appears from the record that trial consumed more than five years. For all these years, they had to reel under the threat of being punished and also had to face several excruciating circumstances which tell upon their mental, physical and economical condition. It is further seen that they are first convicts. It is also seen from the record that occurrence had taken place on an issue of title/possession of piece of land. Having regard to all these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a lesser sentence would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. Sentence awarded under each Section i.e. 147, 323 and 447 of I.P.C. is reduced to S.I. for three (03) - 5 - months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence, if any, shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)