IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1502 of 2010 RAVINDRA KUMAR …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner :Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur & :Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the State :Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, APP ----------- 03. 20.12.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is finally disposed of at the time of admission itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.07.2010, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge III, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No. 9/97, by which the appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence dated 18.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur. The petitioner was tried by learned trial court for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304A IPC with regard to an occurrence that had taken place on 23.03.1993. At the trial, as many as four witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of materials available on record, learned trial court found him guilty under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months and S.I. for one year respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the 2 appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentence. The sentence awarded under sections 279 and 304A was reduced to S.I. for two months and S.I. for six months respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 23.03.1993. The trial consumed more than three years. Thereafter the appeal of the petitioner remained pending for a decade. Referring to trial court judgment, it is submitted that at the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 32 years. Admittedly, no past conviction was found and recorded against him. The petitioner provides livelihood to the family being engaged in the profession of driving commercial vehicle. It is the submission of the petitioner that quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, requires to be appropriately reduced. Learned APP, on the contrary, submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. It is submitted that having regard to the materials on record, learned appellate court has already taken a lenient view in the matter so far as the sentence is concerned. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through materials on record including two impugned orders, this much is evident that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1993. The petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for a longer period. He is engaged in 3 the profession which provides livelihood to the family. He must be now close to 50 years of age. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from the records, this Court is satisfied that sentence for S.I. for three months under section 304A would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, while upholding the conviction of sentence awarded by trial court, duly affirmed by lower appellate court, the sentence of S.I. for six months awarded under section 304A is reduced to S.I. for three months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )