IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.944 of 2011 1. Pragash Sah 2. Kailash Sah Both are sons of Late Mishri Sah, resident of village- Purandaha Rajwara, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi. … Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar …. Opposite Party. ------ For the Petitioners :Mr. Surya Narayan Sinha, Sr. Adv :Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. :Mr. Shikha Rai, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ------ 3. 15.09.2011 The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2009 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in G. R. No. 1090 of 2002 , Trial No. 35 of 2009 convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 I.P.C, six months under Section 323 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for nine months and imprisonment for one year under Section 504 I.P.C., all the sentences to run 2 concurrently, has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.8.2002 at about 7 p.m. the informant, Manoj Mishra was returning after seeing his field and when he reached on luchka situated west of his village Rajbara on pitch road, he was caught hold and abused by the accused petitioners and they started to assault him indiscriminately with danda. Due to assault the informant fell down and raised alarm, villagers reached there and saved him. During assault, his wrist watch and ring fell down which were taken by the accused Pragash Sah. The cause of occurrence is demand of money which was demanded by the informant from the accused petitioners. On the basis of fard beyan of the informant, Sonbarsa P. S. Case No. 60 of 2002 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session. After trial, the accused petitioners were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, against which the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2009, which has been dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by 3 the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case is of the year 2002 and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony, as such, this case may be disposed of at this stage itself. Lower court records have already been received. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court and there is no material on record to show that the accused – petitioners have any criminal antecedent. The occurrence is of dated 15.8.2002, more than nine years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. They have also remained in custody for some time. It is a fit case in which the sentence should be modified. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. They have also remained in 4 custody for sometime. The occurrence has taken place in the year 2002 and more than nine years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence should be modified and accordingly the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.2000/- each. The petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- each in the learned trial Court which will be payable to the informant, Manoj Mishra who is the victim in this case and in default of payment of fine, they will serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. The petitioners are directed to be released on furnishing the receipt showing the deposit of Rs.2000/- each in the learned trial Court and if they are not warranted in any other case. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)