IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1457 of 2010 RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR YADAV @ SADHU PRASAD S/O CHANDESHWAR YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 01.10.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally heard and disposed of. Sole petitioner was tried and convicted by learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 26.09.2003 passed in G.R. Case no. 1045 of 1994/Tr. No. 72 of 2003,whereby on a consideration of the materials brought on record, he was found guilty of having committed offence(s) punishable under Sections 337, 279 and 338 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months, R.I. for 03 months and R.I. for 01 years with fine having default clause(s) under the aforesaid sections respectively. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal no. 67 of 2003 which was heard and dismissed by judgment dated 23.07.2010. Learned lower appellate Court rescanned the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the evidence on record substantively proved the charge(s). The petitioner was found driving a jeep/tracker. He dashed against a tractor/trailer causing few injuries to PW1. At the trial 06 witnesses were examined. Learned trial Court found that although Investigating Officer was not examined yet the same was not fatal to the prosecution case based on the evidence of the witnesses. It was held that the charge(s) have been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgments, submits that some of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. was/were not examined. It is next contended that non examination of the Investigating Officer was fatal to the prosecution case. Learned trial Court in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment considered the aforesaid stand of the petitioner and rejected the same for the reasons disclosed therein. As noticed above, learned lower appellate Court rescanned the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of guilty recorded by learned trial Court. This Court thus finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is next contended that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 15.10.1994. Learned trial Court recorded the judgment and order of conviction on 26.09.2003. For about 09 years the petitioner was made to reel under the threat of being punished which is a shade of punishment which has to be borne in mind while inflicting sentence(s). He was found aged about 36 years at the time of recording conviction by learned trial Court.. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was employed as a driver which provided bread to the family. On the strength of aforesaid submission, it is contended that the sentence imposed on him for proven charge(s) is/are excessive. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that there is/are concurrent finding of guilt recorded by two Courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and as such they do not merit any interference. I have considered the submission advanced on behalf of the parties. As noticed above, the submission of the petitioner that non examination of Investigating Officer was fatal to the prosecution case has no force in view of the reasoning(s) assigned by learned trial Court. This Court, however, finds some force in the submission that petitioner has sufficiently been punished. It is seen from the record that he was made to fight present criminal litigation for nearly 15 years by now. Fight criminal litigation for a long time and thereby to undergo the excruciating circumstances is definitely a relevant consideration. It is further seen that he was engaged in a profession which provided bread to the family. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lesser sentence for the proven charge(s) shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded under diverse Sections of the Penal Code this Court reduces the sentence of R.I. for 01 year awarded under Section 338 of the Penal Code to R.I. for 05 months. The fine imposed under the aforesaid section with default clause, remain unaltered/untouched. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall also remain unaltered/untouched With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)