IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1606 of 2010 VIJAY SHARMA …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Sunil Kumar For the State :Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ----------- 03. 21.01.2011 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 now being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The petitioner assails the appellate order dated 7.08.2010, passed on Cr. Appeal No.26/2009/30/2009 by learned F.T.C.-IV, Jehanabad, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. For an occurrence that had taken place on 10.07.2003, the petitioner was put on trial, vide Trial No.351/2009. On a consideration of the evidence on record including that of the informant (P.W.1), the grand-son of the deceased, namely, P.W.4, and the husband of the deceased, namely P.W.3, in the light of other materials placed on record, learned trial court found and held him guilty under sections 279 and 304A IPC. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and S.I. for one year respectively with fine having default clauses. As per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner was found driving 2 a tank-lorry and dashed against the deceased on the main road, as a result whereof she died. Learned appellate court re- appraised the evidence and came to a conclusion that the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial court did not require interference as the same were held to be sustainable in law based on correct appraisal of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial in the present case consumed for more than six years. For all these years, the petitioner had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial. During these years, he had to face several excruciating circumstances. These factors are relevant consideration while awarding the sentence for the proven charge(s). It submitted that from the trial court judgment it would not appear that he was previously found and held guilty for any criminal offence and convicted for the same. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is the first offender having no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submits that presently the petitioner is close to 60 years of age. On these facts appearing from records, it has been contended that the sentence awarded against him is too excessive. Learned APP, on the contrary, submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below based on appraisal of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 3 The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 10.07.2003. Trial court ultimately found and held him guilty vide judgment and order of conviction dated 26.02.2009. Thus, the petitioner had to face criminal prosecution for about six years. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that he is presently 60 years of age is also relevant consideration. This court also takes into account the fact that going by the materials on record it can be said that he is the first convict/offender. Having regard to these facts appearing from records, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view, so far as the imposition of sentence for the proven charge(s) is concerned, shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction as affirmed by the learned appellate court, the sentence awarded under section 304A is reduced to S.I. for six months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the same shall remain intact. The aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )