IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1511 of 2010 RAM EKBAL YADAV . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 02 17.03.2011 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 aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court no.3), Madhubani, on appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 33 of 1998, whereby the same was dismissed and the conviction recorded under Section 411 of the Penal Code by learned trial Court in Tr. No. 1231 of 1998, was upheld. Learned trial Court held him guilty under Section 411 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years. As per prosecution case, the petitioner was found in possession of electric wires. On the confessionals statement of co-accused Pachkauri Paswan the house of the petitioner was searched wherefrom electric wires were recovered. Learned trial Court on appraisal of the materials brought on record held that the prosecution was able to prove the charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Accordingly he was held guilty under Section 411 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order of conviction petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed in the manner 2 noted above. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that petitioner is the first convict. He has been fighting present criminal litigation since 11.01.1996. The trial consumed 02 years whereafter the appeal remained pending for 12 years. Fighting litigation for a long time is shade of punishment as during this period the accused has to face several exasperating circumstances. It is thus submitted that the petitioner deserves consideration on quantum of sentence as the same is excessive and harsh. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two counts below based on appraisal of evidence on record and they do not call for any interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The alleged theft was committed in December 1995 for which F.I.R. was lodged on January, 1996. The trial consumed more than 02 years. It appears thereafter the appeal remained pending for nearly 12 years. It does not appear from the trial Court’s judgment that the petitioner was earlier held guilty for any criminal case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence would sub serve the end 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 thereunder 3 is reduced to R.I. for 18 months. Other part(s)/ condition(s) of the sentence(s), if any, imposed by lower appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)