IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.894 of 2010 JITENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI KRISHNADEO SINGH R/O VILL. KULNA P.S. AKBARPUR, IN THE DIST. OF NAWADAH ---- PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ----------- 02 29.06.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the present application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein has been found and held guilty under Sections 304A, 279, 337, and 427 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced for diverse period(s) under the aforesaid heads with fine having default clause(s). Prosecution case is that on 9th June 1997, at 4.30 A.M. Hari Mahto and his two sons Balraj Singh, and Anuraj Singh were carrying sand on tractor of Hari Singh towards their house. When the tractor reached the main road of the village near the house of Sidheshwar Singh (P.W.3), there was obstruction caused on the passage road by erecting some pillar. It is the prosecution case that P.W.3 was sleeping there on a cot, and had also tied his cattle. The petitioner was the driver of the tractor with trailer laden with sand. The pillars of P.W.3 were allegedly removed which led to altercation and exchange of hot words 2 between the parties. The tractor was commanded to go through the said passage. Petitioner thus attempted to drive through the passage resulting in causing injury to P.W.2 and death of the son of P.W.3, who was found trapped between the wall of the trailer and the wall of the house. The prosecution, in order to support and prove the allegation/charge(s), examined altogether four witnesses. The investigating officer, and the doctor, who issued injury reports, were, however, not examined. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, it was found that PW’s 2, 3, and 4 had consistently supported the prosecution case. Resultantly the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, six months, six months under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of the Penal Code respectively. He was also imposed fine thereunder with default clause. Petitioner was also held responsible for having committed offence punishable under Section 427 of the Penal Code, and was imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- only with default clause. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 38 of 2001/26/2009, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court no.II), Nawadah. Learned lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence available on record and came to a conclusion that there was no illegality and/or infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence adduced by prosecution meriting any interference. Consequently, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence so 3 recorded by the trial Court was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1997. Petitioner was found to be the driver who was acting at the command and direction of his master. The learned trial Court has assessed his as 25 years. It is contended that the profession of driving vehicles provide livelihood to the family of the petitioner. It is next highlighted that the trial consumed nearly 10 years in completing the trial, and the petitioner was made to reel under the threat of being punished for all these years which itself is a shade of punishment and thus a relevant consideration. Learned counsel for the state supported the impugned orders passed by the both the Courts below. This Court finds from the record that the petitioner indeed was made to fight the present criminal litigation for about 10 years. For all these ten years he was made to undergo the psychological fear of being prosecuted and possibly punished. This Court further finds from the judgment of the learned trial Court that there was no past criminal antecedent of the petitioner. While imposing sentence these considerations are germane. Once guilt is proved, imposing sentence thereafter is a sensitive exercise. Petitioner at a very young age of his life was made accused with such allegation which ultimately was proved at the trial. He appears to be the driver of the vehicle and admittedly acting under the orders of other accused persons. This Court further finds from the appellate order that another co-accused, 4 namely, Hari Mahto involved in the occurrence has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Taking into consideration all these facts, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly the conviction of 01year recorded under Section 304A of the Penal Code is reduced to six (06) months R.I. It is made clear that other part of the sentence, and the fine, as imposed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court, is not interfered with and/ or altered. The sentences, so imposed by the learned lower appellate Court and modified by this Court, shall run concurrently. With this modification in sentence, the revision application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)