IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.186 of 2010 1. MAHESH RAJAK SON OF CHALITRA RAJAK 2. RANJEET MANDAL SON OF KARTIK MANDAL BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEKHPURA, P.S.- MUFASSIL (KHAGARIA), DISTT. KHAGARIA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh no. 2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5 24.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the appellate order dated 8.12.2009 passed on Cr. Appeal no. 25 of 2009 (Navin Paswan and Ors versus State of Bihar) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria in G.R. no. 469 of 2004 has been affirmed. Learned trial court found the petitioners guilty under Section 394 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 03 years besides imposition of fine having default clause. At the trial, 07 witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case. Learned trial court relying upon the evidence of the informant (P.W. 6) and the two seizure witnesses namely P.Ws. 5 and 7 convicted the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners made two fold submissions. It is contended that based on the sole testimony of P.W. 6, finding of guilt recorded by learned court below was inappropriate. It is next contended that one of the co-accuseds of this case namely Navin Paswan moved this Court in Cr. Revision 2 no. 23 of 2010 which was heard and disposed of by order dated 8.1.2010 whereby the sentence was modified to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgments and orders of conviction. It is contended that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below meriting interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Learned appellate Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment has found that the appellant did not put any question and thus tried to shake the testimony of P.W. 6 and, therefore, his evidence was in tact and worth reliance. Having appreciated materials available on record, learned appellate court on rescanning of the evidence has found that the identification in the Court by the informant (P.W. 6) after expiry of two years of the occurrence cannot be brushed aside in view of the fact that the accused was not able to elicit anything from him creating any doubt. The second submission of the petitioners is that one of the co-convicts has been sentenced to period already undergone by this Court. I have perused the order. A Bench of this Court found that the convicted petitioner had remained in custody for about two years and eight months and in that view of the matter, the sentence was modified to the period already undergone. The petitioner has suffered enormously in fighting the 3 trial which protracted for about 05 years. They were found aged about 30 years at the time of recording conviction. There is no past criminal record against them. These facts appearing from record definitely entitle the petitioner for a lesser punishment. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence shall meet the ends of justice. Consequently, while upholding the judgment and order under revision, this Court modifies the sentence of the petitioner awarded under Section 394 IPC from R.I. for 03 years to R.I. for 02 years. The other part/condition of the sentence shall remain unaltered/untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )