Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 1997 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.1997 and 31.01.1997 respectively passed by Sri Satya Deo Prasad, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Naugachia in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 1992. ****** 1. Kanti Chaudhary, Son of Late Ajablal Chaudhary. 2. Suman Chaudhary @ Mani Chaudhary. 3. Pankaj Chaudhary. Both son of Kanti Chaudhary. All resident of village – Sonbarsa, Police Station – Bihpur, District – Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant no. 2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and appellant nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years 2 and fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine both of them will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. On the fardbeyan of the informant Suresh Ishwar is that the appellants came armed with Lathi for refusal to give the bullock and which cause verbal altercation and Suman Chaudhary gave a Lathi blow on head on the instigation of Kanti Chaudhary and other accused alleged to have assaulted with Lathi. The doctor found the injury on the head near the ear. However, he opined that though there was no fracture but death caused due to the injury. The other injury found are not on the vital part of the body and taking into consideration the conviction recorded under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against Suman Chaudhary @ Mani Chaudhary and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code against other accused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the occurrence is of the year 1991 and the appellants Suman Chaudhary @ Mani Chaudahry has already remained in jail since 02.05.1991 to 26.02.1997 and the appellant nos. 2 and 3 have remained in jail from 02.05.1991 to 26.05.1991 and since they have suffered the prosecution and the rigors of the prosecution since the date of occurrence in the year 1991 and hence a lenient view may be taken. 5. Hence, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant no. 2 has remained in jail for about six years and the appellant nos. 1 and 3 3 have also remained in jail for about seven months and hence the interest of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone by them and hence the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, 9th August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.