IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1734 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR 2. JAMUN SAH 3. SANJAY KUMAR ---- PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 03 04.01.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. The three petitioners herein assail the judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 101 of 2003 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. Petitioners were charged under Sections 147,448,323,379 of the Penal Code and tried by the learned trial Court (Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Munger) vide trial no. 85 of 2003. As many as 08 prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting the documents to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the materials on record, the petitioners herein were found and held guilty under Sections 323,448,147 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year, R.I. for 01 year, R.I. for 01 year respectively under each count. They were, however, acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 379 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby they preferred appeal which stood dismissed. 2 It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the occurrence had taken place sometimes in the year 1991. Both the parties are neighbours. The trial of the case consumed more than 12 years. For all these years they had to reel under the threat of being punished. Learned trial Court did not find any previous antecedent of the petitioners. Referring to the prosecution case, it is submitted that on a very trivial issue the occurrence had taken place in which part of the prosecution case has already been disbelieved. It is submitted that one of the co-convicts, namely Sant Kumar choudhary preferred Cr. Rev. no. 1446 of 2010 which has been disposed of by order dated 30.09.2010, whereby the sentence imposed upon him was reduced. On the strength of these facts it is submitted that the petitioners too deserve a lenient sentence. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contends that there is/are concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal meriting interference on merit. From the materials on record, this much is evident that the petitioner had to undergo the agony of trial for about 12 years. Trial Court has not found any previous conviction recorded against the petitioners. Admittedly both the parties are neighbours. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment. The litigant has to go several excruciating circumstances which definitely tell upon his mental, physical 3 and economical conditions. Having regard to these facts, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would meet the ends of justice. Consequently while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 323, 448 and 147 is/are reduced to R.I. for 03 months under each count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence(s), if any, imposed by appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)