IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1215 of 2010 UDAY NONIA, son of Late Raghunath Nonia, resident of village Mogalbigha, p.s. Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. …Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …Opposite party For the petitioner : Mr.Vindhya Keshri Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr.Anil Kr.Singh For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 16.08.2010 Rule is confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Wit the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of finally. For an occurrence that had taken place on 05.07.2002, the petitioner herein was tried for offences punishable under sections 341/34,323/34,325/34 and 504/34 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the female inmates of the two families fought over the partition of property/land. The male members, it appears, intervened in the matter. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the informant tried to rescue her husband, the petitioner assaulted the informant by means of Patta(piece of wooden stick) which according to the informant caused fracture of hand. At the trial, the prosecution seems to have examined as many as eight witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been bale to prove the charge under section 504/34 IPC beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and accordingly he 2 was acquitted. However, trial court found that the evidence on record justify his conviction under section 341,324 and 325 IPC. Learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo S.I. for one month u/s 341, S.I. for six months u/s 323, and S.I. for two years u/s 325 IPC with fine having default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.23/08. The learned lower appellate court on a re-appraisal of the evidence on record found that the evidence on record did not prove the charge under section 341 IPC. The said appeal was considered and dismissed with modification in sentence by judgment and order dated 16.06.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge Jehanabad. Conviction and sentence was upheld barring acquittal of the charge u/s 341 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the evidence on record would show that dispute was on account of partition in which initially the female members participated. It is submitted that for six years the petitioner was made to face the agony of trial. It is next contended that petitioner was not found to have been previously convicted. It is thus contended that the court below ought to have considered lesser punishment and/or ought to have released him under the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment/order. It is contended that there is concurrent finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence on record which cannot be termed to be perverse and, as such, this Court in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, may interfere with the impugned judgment. It is further contended that learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate 3 court have assigned reasons for not releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. True it is that parties fought over the issue relating to partition in which the allegation is that the petitioner assaulted by means of a Patta causing grievous injury to the informant(P.W.2). This Court again finds that the petitioner had to undergo the ordeal of trial for six years. The petitioner was found fairly young when he was sentenced. I am satisfied with the reasonings assigned by the court below for not having released him by giving the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act. However, having regard to the materials noticed hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that the sentenced of S.I. for one year recorded by learned appellate court may be reduced. Accordingly the sentence recorded under section 325 IPC for one year is reduced to S.I. for six months with imposition of fine of Rs.2000 ( rupees two thousand). In default whereof, he shall have to undergo further period of S.I. for one month. With the modification in the sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )