IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.356 of 2011 RAM JEE YADAV SON OF DASHAI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAKSHMANPUR, P.S. BAHERA, DISTT- DARBHANGA. ………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ……..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 2. 07.04.2011 Rule confined to question to sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.08.2010 passed on Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Benipur whereby the appeal was dismissed. For an occurrence that had taken place on 21.04.1999 the petitioner was put on trial vide T.R.No. 41 of 2006 for the charge(s) punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Six witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents in order to prove the charge(s). Learned trial court found that the informant P.W. 4 has been supported by P.Ws. 2 and 3. Deposition of seizure witnesses namely, P.Ws. 3 2 and 6 also lent credence to the prosecution case. Accordingly, he was held guilty under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 years under each head. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred the appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentence which was reduced to S.I. for 02 years under each count. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had to face the criminal litigation for more than 7 years when the trial court ultimately recorded the conviction. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which need to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). It is found that the petitioner was ex- chairman of Mahadev Sthan and that there is no past criminal antecedent against him. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below based on appraisal of evidence which do not merit interference. Having considered the submissions 3 advanced on behalf of the parties this court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial court and duly affirmed by lower appellate court the sentence imposed on petitioner under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to simple imprisonment for one year and six months. Other parts/conditions of sentence, if any imposed by appellate court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence(s) only, the application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)