IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1327 of 2010 KAVENDRA SHARMA S/O GOPAL SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Veena Rani Prasad, APP ----------- 02 20.09.2010 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. Petitioner was charged and tried for offence(s) punishable under Sections 279,337 and 427 of the Penal Code. On a consideration of the materials on record including the evidence of 03 witnesses learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge(s) punishable under Section 279 and 337 of the Penal Code were proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. However, charge framed under Section 427 of the Penal Code was not found fully proved/substantiated. Accordingly he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 03 months under each count with fine having default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20 05.2003 petitioner preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 17 of 2003. Learned lower Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge no.1, Nawada) by judgment and order dated 27th May, 2010 upheld the order with certain modification. It was found that the petitioner was no entitled to be separately sentenced under Section 279 of the Penal Code. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence 2 had taken place on 27.10.97 when the bus allegedly driven by the petitioner dashed against a rickshaw causing minor injuries to the occupants of the rickshaw. It is contended that petitioner was found first offender by the learned trial Court. Admittedly the petitioner had to undergo the agony /rigours of trial for about 06 years. He was found aged about 33 years at the time of recording conviction by learned trial Court. It is contended that the petitioner is only earning member in the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been non compliance with the mandatory provision as contemplated under Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the submission of the petitioner, having regard to the materials on record, the sentence recorded by learned trial Court and duly approved by learned appellate Court is/are excessive, particularly when there was no past conviction found and recorded against the petitioner and the fact that he had to fight the criminal litigation for a long period and thereby to undergo several excruciating circumstances which tells upon the mental, physical and economical condition of the litigant. Learned APP 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 submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Admittedly the occurrence had taken place in 1997. The doctor has not been examined to prove the actual injury sustained by the 03 injureds being the occupants of the rickshaw. Petitioner is the driver, and therefore engaged in a profession that provides bread to the 3 family. Fighting a criminal litigation for long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while awarding sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned trial Court has found that road accidents are on rise and as such the petitioner was not found fit for the grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded on the petitioner is somewhat excessive. I am, thus, satisfied that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. This application is thus partly allowed. While upholding the judgment and order of conviction against the petitioner recorded by learned lower appellate Court, this Court reduces the sentence of S.I. for 03 months awarded under Section 337 of the Penal Code to S.I. for 01 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain unaltered/untouched. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)