IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.548 of 2010 1. BRAHMDEO CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE SIV CHARAN CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF BALUAHI, P.S.- KMOHANPUR DISTRICT- GAYA 2. RAMBILAS CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE KEDAR CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARJARA P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTRICT- GAYA. 3. SAHDEO CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE SIV CHARAN CHOUDHARY RESDIENT OF VILLAGE BHALUAHI P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTRICT- GAYA. 4. DEVENDRA CHOUDHARY SON OF SITA RAM CHOUDHARY 5. NAGESHWAR CHOUDHARY SON OF PRGAS CHOUDHARY BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARJARA P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTRICT- GAYA. 6. GORA CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE GUJAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHODHI P.S. MOHANPUR DISTT. GAYA 7. JAGDISH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE DUKHAN CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARJARA P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTT- GAYA. 8. KAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY SON OF SIV CHARAN CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALUAHI P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTT- GAYA 9. RAM CHANDER CHOUDHARY SON OF PRAGAS CHOUDHARY 10. CHANDESHWAR CHOUDHARY SON OF PRAGAS CHOUDHARY 11. KOKA CHOUDHARY SON OF SHIVAN CHOUDHARY ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KARJURA, P.S.- MOHANPUR DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mrs. Shikha Kumari, Advocate, For the State : Mr. R.B. Ray, ‘Raman’, APP ----------- 5 13.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waves notice on behalf of the State. L.C.Rs have already been received. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the 2 petitioners and the order this court proposes to pass, it is neither advisable nor apposite to set out all relevant facts in detail that led to filing of the present revision application. Petitioners were tried and convicted under Sections 147, 148, 427, 448, 379, 324/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years, 03 years, 01 year, 01 year, 03 years and 03 years respectively. Petitioner nos. 4 and one Dara Choudhary were additionally charged and held guilty under Section 414 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, petitioners preferred appeal. The appellate court rescanned the evidence brought and record and concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the parties are co-villagers. Allegation is that there was scuffle between them as a result whereof, certain injuries were inflicted on some of the witnesses of the case. It is further alleged that a bucket and a lota (mug) and She-goat were stolen. Referring to paragraph 28 of the trial court judgment, it is submitted that even the trial court has conceded that there was fight inter se between the parties. It is thus submitted that lenient view so far as imposition of sentence may be taken in the present case. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that 3 there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below which do not call for any interference particularly when the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality in appreciation thereof. On a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through materials available on record including the two judgments, this court finds that the petitioners were made to undergo the rigours of trial for over three years. Thereafter the appeal preferred by them consumed 10 years in disposal. For all these years, they were made to fight the litigation. This is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while imposing sentence. Taking overall view of the facts emanating from the records, this court is satisfied that a lesser punishment in the present case shall sub-serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, sentence recorded against the petitioners herein under Section 148, 379 and 324/149 IPC are reduced to a period of 02 years R.I. Sentence recorded against petitioner no. 4 under Section 411 will also be reduced to 02 years R.I. It is made clear that other part/condition of sentence have not been touched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )