IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.690 of 2010 PRAMOD RAI, SON OF NALDIP RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHANDAPUR, P.S. BIHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 4. 15.07.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower court records have been called for. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is being finally disposed of. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year under section 304-A IPC. and R.I. for one month under section 279 IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by him being Cr. Appeal No.133/07 was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Naugachia by judgment and order on 9.4.2010. The petitioner while driving a Maxi on 03.11.1999 dashed one Chandeshwari Prasad Mehta who was waiting along with others to catch a bus. Aforesaid Chandeshwari Prasad Mehta died at the spot. At the trial five witnesses were examined to bring home the charge(s). Learned trial court placing reliance on the evidence of the informant (P.W.1), P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, has come to the conclusion that charges were proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he was sentenced for diverse terms as noted above. The petitioner filed appeal. Learned - 2 - appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence and in the light of submissions advanced by the appellant came to the conclusion as recorded in paragraph 14 of the judgment which is extracted hereinbelow: “14. On the basis of aforesaid discussion I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case and the accusation levelled against the appellant-accused. To my mind the learned trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Naugachia.” It appears from materials on record that both the courts below have not committed any patent illegality in analyzing the evidence available on record. The findings of guilt so recorded by learned trial court and by learned appellate court, therefore, do not merit any interference. It appears from records that occurrence had taken place on 03.11.1999. The petitioner was made to face trial for about eight years and thereby faced with diverse excruciating circumstances. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction he was found to be 40 years of age. This Court is not able to find from the trial court judgment that he was earlier found punished for any criminal offence. Considering these aspects of the matter, this Court while upholding the conviction considers it apposite to reduce the sentence which will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded under section 304-A is reduced to R.I. for nine months. Other - 3 - part of the sentence remain unchanged/unaltered. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )