IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.168 of 2010 1. TARNI PRASAD YADAV 2. HIRA PD. YADAV @ HIRA YADAV 3. BABLOO YADAV 4. ASHOK YADAV 5. SHYAM PRASAD YADAV --------------------- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR with CR. REV. No.128 of 2010 1. RAMESH YADAV 2. CHETHRU YADAV --------------- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners: M/s Ram Balak Mahto, Akhileshwar Prasad Singh And Ajay For the State: Mr. B.P.Singh, A.P.P. =========== 4 23.3.2010 Both the revision applications have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 passed in Cr.Appeal No. 30/99 by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Saharsa, by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 12.10.1999 and 13.10.1999 respectively passed in S.T.No. 41/96 by 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Saharsa whereby he acquitted the appellants for the offence under sections 326 and 379 IPC and held them guilty for the offence under sections 307 and 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years each. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Both the revision petitions are pressed on the point of sentence only by referring that intention of all the petitioners was not to kill the victim otherwise there was no reason that all of them were armed with country made rifle or three-nut but only two are alleged namely petitioner no.4 Ashok Yadav and petitioner no.3, Babloo Yadav but firing of one of them only hit the injured even then petitioners remained in custody for months. According to learned counsel, if conviction would have been pressed there was every chance of success but the period undergone by petitioners remained there. Lastly it is submitted that now the parties have resolved their differences and arrived at a compromise, if that is not taken for acquittal as in compoundable cases but that can easily be taken for liberal view on the point of sentence. In the discussed circumstance, considering overt act of all the accused- petitioners, I am also of the same view but not for petitioner no.4 Ashok Yadav whose firing hit the victim informant. In the result, both revision petitions are allowed in part on the point of sentence only. Sentence is reduced and minimized to the 3 period already undergone by petitioners of both the Criminal Revision applications, save and except petitioner no.4 Ashok Yadav (Cr.Revision No.168 of 2010, his sentence is reduced and minimized to three years from five years. The conviction is maintained with modification in sentence as mentioned above. Petitioner no.4, Ashok Yadav (Cr.Revision No. 168 of 2010) shall be released after serving sentence of three years. Let the lower court be sent down to the court below forthwith. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)