IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1109 of 2010 ANIL KUMAR S/O SHYAM LAGAN RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 28.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of 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. On the basis of a written complaint lodged by Nirmala Mishra (PW 1) a case was instituted alleging therein that one Sanjay Kumar S/o Rabindra Nath Singh was found taking examination which was being conducted by Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad in place of the petitioner. Allegation thus is that petitioner cheated the board by permitting another person to take examination in his place. At the trial 07 prosecutions witnesses were examined. On a consideration of the material, learned trial Court has found and held that informant (PW-1) was supported in toto by Amita Rani Chatergee (PW-4), and Sabita Kumari (PW-5), who were functioning as Invigilator(s) at the said examination. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, it was found that in place of Anil Kumar carrying roll no. 2010729, Ticket no. 003260, one Sanjay Kumar was writing the papers in the said examination. Said Sanjay Kumar made written statement accepting the aforesaid fact. Learned trial Court found and held 2 that the charge(s) framed under Sections 420 and 120B of the Penal Code were proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 years under each count. Appeal of the petitioner being Cr. Appeal no. 293 of 2001 failed. Learned lower appellate Court re-scanned the evidence and came to the following conclusion as would appear from paragraph no. 16 of the judgment:- “16. The accused has denied the alleged occurrence claimed to be innocent and his false implication in this case. But there is nothing brought on the record as why he has been falsely implicated in this case. Apart from this accused Sanjay Kumar was arrested at the spot while he was appearing in the examination at the place of Anil Kumar the accused-appellant who confessed his guilt in the presence of all the prosecution witnesses. Arresting of accused Sanjay Kumar Singh is not denied. Further materials available on the record clearly shows that accused-appellant Anil Kumar was not appearing in the examination for whom Roll no. 2010729, Ticket no. 003260 was allotted and admit card was issued, rather another man the accused Sanjay Kumar Singh was appeared for him as his face was not tallying with the photo affixed on the admit card. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances it is apparent that Sanjay Kumar Singh was appeared for the appellant Anil Kumar in the examination and as such the accused-appellant was being personated.” In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below. It is contended that petitioner has already suffered enormously. The occurrence had taken place sometimes in the year 1996. The trial consumed close to 05 years. For all these five years he was made to fight the criminal litigation and thereby to 3 undergo the rigors/ordeal thereof. It is the submission of the learned counsel that it is a shade of punishment. Referring to the impugned judgment of the trial Court it is contended that petitioner has been found to be the first offender. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment(s). It is contended that the concurrent finding of guilt may not be interfered with by this Court as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the approach of the Courts below. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is satisfied that having regard to the fact that petitioner was the first offender and he was 32 years of age at the time of conviction and also that he had to undergo excruciating circumstances in fighting the criminal litigation, a lesser sentence would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the sentence of R.I. for 01 years awarded under Sections 420 and 120B of the Penal Code is/are reduced to R.I. for 09 months only. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)