IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1137 of 2010 1. RAMCHANDRA MAHTO SON OF LATE MAHABIR MAHTO 2. SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO SON OF LATE MAHABIR MAHTO 3. AMRENDRA KUMAR @ BHOLA MAHTO SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO. 4. SAKALDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE NAGO MAHTO. 5. SHRAWAN KUMAR MAHTO SON OF LATE SURAJ MAHTO 6. RAJARAM MAHTO SON OF LATE SURAJ MAHTO ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BATHAULI, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha no. 3. Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 10.08.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 17.7.1995, the petitioners herein were charged under sections 147, 149, 447, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, in order to prove charge(s), produced and examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 (son of the informant) and P.W. 4 (informant) received injuries of diverse nature at the hands of the petitioners in the occurrence. They have consistently supported the prosecution case. The doctor (P.W. 5) has proved their injury reports at the trial. Learned trial court on consideration of the materials placed on record found all of them guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 and 337/149 of Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 2 year under Sections 147/149, S.I. for 01 month under Section 447, S.I. for 06 months under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 01 year under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, they preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 70/2006. Learned appellate court on a reconsideration of the evidence brought on record found that the charge under Section 324 IPC was proved only against petitioner no. 6 (Rajaram Mahto). Others were accordingly acquitted of the said charge under Section 324 IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned trial court under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 337 was, however, confirmed. The conviction of R.I. for 01 year recorded against petitioner no. 6 (Rajaram Mahto) was also upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of occurrence in the present case is 17.7.1995. Petitioners were made to undergo the ordeal of trial for about 11 years. It is next contended that they have not been found previously convicted by the trial court. It is further highlighted that the petitioners and the prosecution side are residing in the same village. The trial court found them aged between 22 years to 55 years. It is next contended that they all belong to one family. On these submissions, it is contended that the petitioners deserve a lesser punishment. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned two courts 3 below which cannot be said to be perverse particularly in view of the fact that all the three injureds consistently supported the prosecution case. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. Petitioners were finally convicted by judgment and order passed in the year 2006. For all these years, they were made to undergo rigours of trial and thereby face circumstances which must have exasperating effects on them. This is a relevant consideration which has to be borne in mind while inflicting sentence for the charges proved at the trial. I am thus satisfied that a lesser punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall sub-serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, the maximum sentence awarded for diverse sections on petitioner nos. 1 to 6 is reduced to S.I. for 08 months. So far petitioner no. 6(Rajaram Mahto) is concerned, his sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for 01 year is reduced to R.I. for 09 months only. Other part(s) of sentence remain untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )