IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1683 of 2010 SARJU YADAVA @ SARJU YADAV @ SARJUG YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 04.01.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. V, in Cr. Appeal no. 193 of 2003 whereby the appeal preferred by him and few other convicts was dismissed. Petitioner was tried under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 148 and 324 of the Penal Code with respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 04.12.1993. Prosecution examined 04 witnesses besides bringing on record documents supporting the prosecution case. On a consideration of the evidence on record, learned trial Court found and held him guilty under Sections 147,323,341 and 148/324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months, R.I. for 04 months, R.I. for 01 months and R.I. for 01 years respectively. The appeal of the petitioner stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per prosecution case petitioner is said to have given one ‘khanti’ blow in the lower part of the leg of the informant (PW 3). The petitioner had to fight the criminal litigation for a long time. At 2 the time of recording conviction he was found more than 45 years of age. Referring to the trial Court’s judgment it is submitted that admittedly there is no past conviction recorded against him. It is thus the contention that in view of the attending facts of the case petitioner deserves a lenient sentence. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which have not been shown to be perverse or patently illegal meriting interference on merit. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties this much is evident that petitioner had to fight the criminal litigation for about 10 years. The conviction was recorded in the year 2003. It is not apparent from the trial Court’s judgment that the petitioner was ever found guilty in any other case and convicted thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct in his submission that on a very trivial issue the occurrence had taken place in which the allegation is that he gave one ‘khanti’ blow causing injury in the left leg of the informant (PW3). Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as the litigant had to undergo several excruciating circumstances. This factor has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). This Court on a perusal of the materials on record including the two impugned judgments is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall sub 3 serve the cause of justice. Accordingly while upholding the conviction so recorded by the trial Court and duly affirmed by the appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 148/324 of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 06 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence(s) shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)