IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1570 of 2011 1. Bharat Prasad, son of late Shiv Prasad Mahto. 2. Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Suman, son of Ram Briksha Mahto. 3. Pawan Kumar, son of Bharat Prasad. (Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of village- Gulmahiyachak, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna) 4. Ramesh Mahto, son of Madho Mahto, resident of Chakiyapar, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna. ………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Pravesh Suman, son of Late Shiv Prasad Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Sabalpur, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna. ………Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 23.12.2011 I.A. No.2618/2011 at flag ‘A’ has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this revision application. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.2618/2011 is allowed. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 7.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Patna City in Cr. Appeal No.121/2009 and Cr. Appeal No.152/2009 by which the judgment of conviction dated 7.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case 2 No.143/1992, Trial No.153/2008/149/2009 has been confirmed and the sentence has been modified. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 352, 347, 365/120 B of the I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 7.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal Nos. 121/2009 and 152/2009 by which the conviction of the petitioners has been upheld and sentence has been modified. The accused petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 days under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C., R.I. for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 347/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 7 days, R.I. for one month under Section 352 and R.I. for three months under Sections 365 and 120B of the I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.1000/-each and in default of payment of fine, sentence for 20 days and all the sentences to run concurrently. It is further submitted that the occurrence has taken place on 4.06.1992. More than 19 years have passed. The petitioners have been suffering from mental 3 agony. The petitioner no.1 has been in custody for three months thirteen days and the petitioner no.2 has been in custody for about 3 months and petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4 have remained in custody for more than two weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this revision application may be disposed of at this stage itself. Mrs. Renu Kumari, the learned A.P.P. for the State has got no objection. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony for more than 19 years as the occurrence has taken place on 4.06.1992. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have almost served out the sentence. The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have also remained in custody for some time. It has also been submitted that during the trial the victim of the occurrence Shiv Prasad Mahto died. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioners should be reduced/modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner 4 nos. 1 and 2 is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are directed to be released from custody, if not required in any other case The sentence of the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.2000/-each. The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4000/- (Rs.2000/-each) in the trial court and file a receipt thereof. Thereafter, they will be released from custody, if not required in any other case. In case the fine is realized, it will be payable to the complainant Ram Pravesh Suman, opposite party no.2. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)