IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1679 of 2010 RAJA RAM CHAUDHARY . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 05 03.01.2011 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 disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is facing charge punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of the Penal Code. The case germinates out of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.02.1997, alleging therein that son of the informant while moving on the road was hit and crushed by Tata 407 bus which was found driven by the petitioner. This led to investigation followed by filing of charge sheet. At the trial 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge besides bringing on record other documents. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and accordingly he was held guilty under Section 304A and 279 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 years and 03 months respectively. Aggrieved thereby he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 84 of 2002 which was considered and dismissed. Learned lower appellate Court re-evaluated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court did not call for any interference as they did not suffer 2 with any grave/patent illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place sometimes in the year 1997. Petitioner had to face the rigours of trial for a pretty long time. Trial Court ultimately convicted him by judgment and order dated 28.08.2002. It is submitted that at the time of recording conviction he was found aged about 32 years. Referring to the trial Court’s judgment it is submitted that there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. It is next contended that petitioner is the sole bread earner in the family and conviction and sentence will also adversely affect the dependents in the family. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilty recorded by the two Courts below which have not been shown either perverse or patently illegal justifying any interference. This much is evident from the record that occurrence had taken place in the year 1997 and the trial consumed more than 05 years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment. A litigant has to undergo several exasperating circumstances while fighting litigation. This is a relevant consideration for inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). Having regard to these submissions, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence shall sub serve the 3 cause of justice. Consequently while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 304A of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 06 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence(s) so imposed by appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)