IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1225 of 2010 HEMA CHANDRA PASWAN, son of Late Sukhram Paswan, resident of village Kutubpur Kothi, p.s. Hajipur Sadar, Vaishali …petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party ----------- 02. 17.08.2010 Rule is confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of finally. In view of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the kind of order this Court proposes to pass, facts are not required to be detailed. For an occurrence that had taken place on 04.02.1999, the petitioner was tried for offence(s) punishable under sections 279 and 337 IPC. The trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, came to the conclusion that charges have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he was held guilty under the aforesaid charge(s). He was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and was imposed a fine of Rs.500/- having default clause. No separate sentenced was awarded under section 279 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.67/2009. The learned appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the 2 finding of guilt so recorded by learned trial court required no interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was made to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for about ten years. It is submitted that admittedly he was first offender. He is the driver and provides livelihood to the entire family. It is thus contended that fighting criminal litigation for a long time and thereby reel under constant threat of being punished is a shade of punishment which has to be borne in mind while imposing sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of facts/guilt recorded by two courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and, as such, they merit no interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned trial court has found that petitioner has a numerical family to cater to their needs. It was admittedly first offence. He was found aged about 40 years at the time of recording conviction. He had to fight the case for decades. On these facts appearing from the record,, I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction imposed on him under section 337 IPC, the sentence is reduced to S. I. for one month. He is imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof he will have to go further S.I. for a period of 15 3 days. In case the fine is realized/paid the same shall be made over to the injured Saryug Das (P.W.5) and/or his legal heirs. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )