IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.205 of 2011 RANJEET KUMAR YADAV SON OF GHANSHYAM YADAV ….PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 02. 23.02.2011 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. The application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2010, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 15-A/2006, whereby the conviction recorded by learned trial court in Tr. No.151/2006 under sections 379/411 IPC has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner stood dismissed. With regard to an occurrence that had taken place on 23.05.1999 the petitioner was put on trial for the charge punishable under sections 379/411 IPC. As per the prosecution case, he was found escaping from a bogie of train and captivated. On search, a watch was recovered from his possession. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined four witnesses, besides bringing on record the documents in support of its case. Learned trial court on an appraisal of materials on record found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge punishable under sections 379/411 IPC and sentenced to undergo S. I. for six months. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner preferred appeal which was considered and disposed of in 2 the manner indicated above. From materials on record, it appears that the occurrence had taken place on 23.05.1999. The trial consumed more than seven years. For all these years, the petitioner had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial. It further appears from the trial court judgment that the petitioner was found first convict. Fighting litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as during this period(s) the petitioner had to face vagaries of trial of different amplitudes. It further appears that he was found aged about 25 years at the time of recording conviction by the trial court. Learned APP submits that there are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below based on appraisal of evidence which do not call for any interference. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for a long time and that he was found to be first convict, this Court is satisfied that a lessor punishable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by trial court and duly affirmed by learned appellate court, the sentence awarded under sections 379/411 IPC is reduced to S.I. for four months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence, if any, shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )