IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.237 of 2011 1. RAMAYAN RAM, SON OF BANSHI RAM 2. UDAY RAM, SON OF LATE HARI KISHUN RAM 3. UPENDRA RAM, SON OF LATE HARI KISHUN RAM 4. MAHENDRA RAM, SON OF LATE HARI KISHUN RAM 5. DHANJI RAM, SON OF LATE FAGUNI RAM. 6. BAHADUR RAM @ LAL BAHADUR RAM, SON OF LATE MAHABIR RAM ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- ARANG, P.S.- DINARA (BHANASH), DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - ---------- For the petitioner: Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP 3 10.03.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage. Six of the convicts of Tr. No. 498/2007 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas have filed the present application challenging the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court as also the judgment and order of affirmation passed by learned Lower Appellate Court on their appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 2007. The Trial Court found the petitioners guilty under Sections 379 and 447 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months with fine having default clause and S.I. for 03 months respectively. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the 2 prosecution case relates to forcible harvesting of crop. Part of the harvested crop was subsequently recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is submitted that both the parties led claim over the land in question. Learned Trial Court having regard to the material/evidence brought on record found that the land belonged to the prosecution side and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced. It is submitted that occurrence had taken place on 2.11.2002 and the Trial Court ultimately found and held them guilty by judgment and order dated 14.5.2007. At least for five years, the petitioners had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial. Referring to the Trial Court’s judgment, it is next submitted that they have been found to be the first convicts. It is the submission of the petitioners that considering the nature of allegations and the material available on record, petitioners deserve a lesser quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hands, submits that there are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which do not merit interference. After having heard the parties and after going through the materials on record including the two judgments impugned in the present revision application, this Court finds that the petitioners have sufficiently been harassed in pursuing the criminal litigation for five years. Fighting 3 criminal litigation for a long time is a shadow of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge. This Court further finds that the Trial Court has noticed the submission of the petitioner that they are the first convicts. In other words, they do not carry any criminal antecedent. Having regard to these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence for the charge proved against them would, in the facts and circumstances of the case, subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 379 IPC is reduced to S.I. for 04 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)