IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.464 of 2010 1. BHUPEN YADAV 2. UPENDRA YADAV BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMDEO YADAV, R/O VILL. SHEKHPURA, P.S. BHARGAMA, DIST. ARARIA. ---- PETITIONERS. . Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY. For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, APP. ----------- 03 28.06.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Lower court records have already been received. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioners herein are brothers. They have been found and held guilty under Section 394 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years. Prosecution case is that on 24.06.1995 at 7.30 P.M., when the informant (PW-5) was on his way back home on a cycle, the petitioners herein appeared from the nearby field and committed robbery. Further allegation is that on protest one of them assaulted him by means of ‘Churra’ causing injury on the right wrist. At the trial altogether five witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court found PW’s 2, 3 and 5 to be eye witnesses and worth placing reliance. Trial Court, thus, found and held that 2 the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction both the appellants preferred Cr. Appeal no. 55 of 1998, which was considered and dismissed by the learned appellate Court by judgment and order dated 4th January, 2010. It appears that the evidence of the witnesses available on record were reappraised and whereafter the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the order of the conviction. Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that date of occurrence in the present case is 24.06.1995. Both the petitioners herein are full brothers. Referring to the judgment of the learned trial Court, it is contended that admittedly they are the first convicts/offenders. It is next highlighted that the injuries sustained by P.W.5 has been found to be superficial. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that reeling under the threat of being finally convicted for such a long time (in the present case close to 14 years) is a relevant consideration which the learned lower appellate Court failed to keep in focus. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is concurrent finding recorded by both the Court below regarding the culpability of the petitioners’ case which need no interference. Having heard both sides and after going through the materials available on record, this Court is satisfied that a lenient 3 view, in so far as imposition of sentence is concerned, shall sub serve the ends of justice. While upholding the conviction recorded under Section 394 of the Penal Code the sentence of 03 years R.I. under Section 394 of the Penal Code is reduced to 02 years R.I. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)