CRIMINAL REVISION No.171 OF 2002 Against the judgment dated 6th December, 2001 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 112 of 1997 passed by Sri Shivmurat Ram, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21. 8.1997 passed in G.R. Case No. 428 of 1991 and Trial No. 231 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. *********** SURAJ MAHTO ………………………………. PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …………………………… OPPOSITE PARTY ********** For the Petitioner:- None. For the State:- Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate, APP ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S.K. Sharma, J. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. Learned APP is present who has assisted the court. This revision application has been admitted for hearing on the question of sentence only, so it is being disposed of after hearing the learned APP and r perusal of record. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 6.12.2001 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 112 of 1997 by which he affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.8.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Samsastipur in G.R. Case No. 428 of 1991 and Trial No. 231 of 1996 whereby the petitioner along with one Bechan Baitha were held guilty under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. One Ram Bilash Pandit has filed a written statement before the - 2 - Circle Officer, Warisnagar alleging therein that there was a big Pipal tree near his house. Allegation is that in absence of the informant, accused Suraj Mahto sold the Pipal tree for rupees five thousand to Bechan Dhobi and both Pipal trees were cut. When it was protested then Suraj Mahto, the petitioner who was Mukhiya at that time told that he would cut the tree. Suraj Mahto had no land near the said tree. Later on, he has purchased three khathas of land a few months ago, constructed his house and threatened the informant to shift his house otherwise he would be ruined. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 379/411 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and after trial both accused were convicted. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appeal was dismissed. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, they are; PW 1 Badar Pandit, PW 2 Ram Punit Jha, PW 3 Devendra Jha, PW 4, the informant Ram Vilash Pandit, PW 5 Ismamul Haque, PW 6 Suryabali Rai the I. O. and PW 7 (Circle Officer, Ashok Kumar Jha.) The witnesses in their evidence have consistently supported that on the date and time of occurrence, the petitioner has cut the pipal tree. This fact was corroborated by the I. O. and Circle Officer. So the trial court as well as the appellate court came to the concurrent finding of the fact that the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. I have perused the entire evidences and I see no reason to differ with the findings of the court below because their judgments are based on sound reasoning and the Presiding Officers have discussed the evidences - 3 - of the witnesses and considered the defence of the accused also. Considering all these things the courts below have held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it appears that the case has been admitted on the question of sentence only. The occurrence is of the year 1991 and a long time has been passed. In my view, the sentences need modification. It is accordingly, modified to the extent that the period undergone by the petitioner during investigation, trial and appeal shall be deemed to be sufficient for the ends of justice. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated 23rd May, 2008. N.A.F.R./avin.