CRIMINAL REVISION No.1248 OF 2009 ------------ Against the order and judgement dated 18.5.2009 passed by learned Sri Raj Kumar Shrivastava, Ist Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Criminal Appeal no.21 of 2007 and judgment of conviction and order dated 20.2.2007 passed by Sri D.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari in G.R. No.954 of 2003, Trial no.912 of 2007 arising out of Motihari Mufassil P.S. case no.77 of 2003. ------------ 1. LAXMAN SAH son of late Nathuni Sah 2. Upendra Sah son of Laxman Sah both are residents of vill.- Madhubani Ghat, P.S.-Mufassil, District-East Champaran—(Petitioners) Versus STATE OF BIHAR---------------------------------------------(Opp. Parties) -------------- For he petitioners. : Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J. Heard the parties. This revision application is directed against the order and judgment dated 18.5.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal no.21 of 2007 by which the judgement of conviction and order dated 20.2.2007 passed in G.R. no.954/2003, Trial no.912/07 arising out of Motihari Mufassil P.S. case no.77/2003 has been confirmed. Only sentence is pressed referring that family members of two full brothers quarreled and in that course it is alleged that petitioners assaulted family members of the informant and his wife resulting into termination of informant’s wife’s pregnancy. The matter was also sensitive for which the occurrence took place that petitioners shaved their heads on death of a child, informant’s grand-son without - 2 - going to his door. Incident took place in the year 2003 and since then, according to the learned counsel, petitioners are facing trial. Petitioners are ricksaw-pullars and there was no mens rea at all. There was some sudden provocation for the quarrel and in no manner assault caused was leading to termination of pregnancy. According to the learned counsel, termination of pregnancy is also doubted as for the same informant’s wife was admitted to hospital but her statement was not recorded. Now referring to the above circumstance the only submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the period undergone by them may be observed sufficient towards their sentence and petitioner no.1, who was alleged for causing assault leading to termination of pregnancy, remained in custody one day in the trial court and both the petitioners are in custody since 24.6.2009 till today. In my view also, by minimizing the period of sentence, period of custody of the petitioners can be observed sufficient towards their sentence. The discussed and suggested circumstance entitle petitioners for modification on the point of sentence. The revision petition is partly allowed on the point of sentence by minimizing the period of sentence to the period undergone by the petitioner in custody and the judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed for the rest. Petitioners, who are accused in the aforesaid case, be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case. Let this order be sent through fax at the cost of the - 3 - petitioners. Patna High Court, 12th January, 2010 Sudip/ NAFR ( Mandhata Singh, J. )