IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1453 of 2010 1. DINESH YADAV 2. SURESH YADAV …PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 07. 02.12.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. The two petitioners herein were charged under diverse section of the Penal Code including section 307/34 IPC. and tried by learned 4th Asstt. Sessions Judge, Patna in S.T.No.96/1991/11/1991. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove charge(s), besides bringing on record various exhibits/documents. On a consideration of materials available on record, learned trial court found them guilty under sections 341,323,307/34 IPC and section 24 of C.T. Act and sentenced them for diverse period, the maximum being under section 307 IPC wherein they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.135/95. Learned lower appellate court re-scanned and re-appraised the evidence on record and by a proceeding dated 19.05.2008, the 2 conviction recorded under section 307 IPC by the trial court was set aside. However, the conviction and sentence recorded under sections 323 and 341 IPC and section 24 C.T. Act was/were maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are closely related. The occurrence had taken place on a trivial issue, i.e. over grazing of field of the informant by the buffalos of the accused(s). The occurrence had taken place on 16.11.1990. Petitioners had to fight criminal litigation/trial for a period close to five years whereafter the initial conviction was recorded. At the time of recording conviction, they were found aged about 24 and 35 years respectively. Learned trial court has found no past conviction against them. It is also contended that the appeal of the petitioners remained pending for over 12 years. On the strength of these submissions, it has been contended that petitioners deserve a lessor quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below based on appraisal of evidence on record which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory and, as such, the impugned judgments do not require interference on merit. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Petitioners were definitely found young ones at the time of conviction. The prosecution case reveals that the 3 occurrence had taken place on a very trivial issue. Admittedly, on an appraisal of evidence on record, conviction under section 307 IPC has not been found sustainable by the appellate court which set aside the same. From the trial court judgment, it does not appear that they were having any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that fighting criminal litigation for five years and thereby undergoing several excruciating circumstances are required to be kept in focus while inflicting the sentence for the proven charge(s). Agreeing with the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned lower appellate court, reduces the sentence of R.I. for one year recorded under section 323 IPC to R.I. for six months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain uncharged/intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )