IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.765 of 2010 1. RAMESHWAR PANDIT S/O SATAHI PANDIT 2. BANARAS PANDIT S/O SUKHA PANDIT 3. BHOLA RAI 4. GIRDHARI RAI 5. BHIKHARI RAI ( 3 TO 5 ARE SONS OF RAMANATH RAI) 6. RAMNATH RAI SON OF DHANA RAI (DECEASED) (ALL R/O VILL. BISHUNPUR SARAIYA P.S. DEORIA ( PAROO) DIST. MUZAFFARPUR ---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PHUDENI DEVI W/O LATE MAKHAN PANDIT OF VILL. BISHUNPUR SARAIYA P.S. DEORIYA ( PAROO), MUZAFFARPUR. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha-3, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP. ----------- 03 23.06.2010 Heard both sides. Present application in Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-02-2010, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court no.1), Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 55 of 1993, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was dismissed with modification in sentence. All the petitioners herein were charged under Sections 147 and 323 of the Penal Code, Petitioner no.6, was additionally charged under Sections 380 and 452 of the Penal Code. Petitioner no. 5 was also charged under Section 354 of the Penal Code. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court found and held that the charges framed against all the accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of the Penal Code were proved. So far as petitioner no.6 is concerned, it was found and held that charges framed under 2 Sections 380 and 452 of the Penal code were also proved. Petitioner no.5 was, however, acquitted of the charge framed under Section 354 of the Penal Code. Accordingly all the petitioners herein were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 147 and 323 of the Penal Code respectively. Petitioner no.6 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Sections 380 and 452 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the petitioners herein preferred the aforesaid appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentences. The sentences recorded under Section 147 and 323 of the Penal Code against petitioner nos. 1 to 6 was/ were reduced to a period of three months R.I. under each head. Similarly, the sentence of two years recorded under Sections 380 and 452 of the Penal Code was reduced to a period of six months R.I. This is what the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record held:- “21. In view of the above facts and circumstances coupled with the discussions made above, it is evident and established that the prosecution (complainant) has established the charges against the appellants under which they were convicted and sentenced as stated above beyond reasonable doubt. 22. All the appellants are held guilty U/s 147 and 323 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each U/s 147 and 323 I.P.C. Their sentence for R.I. for one year each U/s 147 and 323 I.P.C. is reduced to a sentence of R.I. for three months each U/s 147, 323 I.P.C. So far as the appellant Ram Nath Rai is concerned he is further held guilty for the offence U/s 380 and 452 I.P.C. has sentenced for R.I. for two years each U/s 380 and 452 I.P.C. is reduced to a sentence of R.I. for six months each U/s 380 and 452 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” 3 This Court finds no justification for interference in the order impugned. Petitioners have been granted adequate relief by the learned appellate Court. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)