IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1806 of 2010 1. GOPAL YADAV SON OF LATE VIMAL YADAV 2. BINOD KUMAR @ BINOD YADAV SON OF LATE TRIBHUVAN YADAV 3. RAMANAND YADAV SON OF GOPAL YADAV. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- DUBHARA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with CR. REV. No.29 of 2011 1. TEJBALI YADAV SON OF LATE TRIBHUWAN YADAV 2. BINAY KUMAR SON OF TEJBALI YADAV. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- DUBHARA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Aminuddin Ahmad Khan, Advocate Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No. 1, APP Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP 3 04.02.2011 Both the applications arise out of the common judgment and order and as such they have been heard together and shall be governed by the present order. Petitioners were tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 vide Tr. No. 499 of 2009. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined six witnesses besides exhibiting documents to support the prosecution case. As per the allegation contained in the complaint, later treated as an F.I.R., the accused persons named in the F.I.R. came to the house of the informant (P.W. 4) and demanded to pay the randari amount failing which he would be killed. On the following day i.e. 28.10.2000 at about 6 - 2 - a.m., while the informant was sitting at his Dallan, all the accused persons arrived there and inquired from the informant as to whether he had paid the amount or not earlier demanded. The informant showed his inability whereafter the petitioner Tejbali Yadav is said to have inflicted a Garasa blow with an intention to kill him which caused injuries to the informant on his head. It is the prosecution case that other accused persons also assaulted him with Khanti/lathi. Hulla was raised which attracted his brother Indradeo Prasad (P.W. 3) who tried to protest and intervene in the matter whereafter the petitioner Ramanand Yadav is said to have been given a blow with Khanti on his head causing injury. Thereafter the allegation is that rest of the accused persons assaulted them with lathi. The informant’s nephew Awadh Prasad arrived there to intervene but the accused persons were adamant to assault him but anyhow he escaped. After committing the occurrence, the accused persons escaped. The informant and his brother (P.W. 3) were carried to the hospital for medical treatment whereafter on 4.4.2001, the complaint was lodged which was later treated as an F.I.R. leading to investigation and filing of charge-sheet giving rise to Tr. No. 499 of 2009. Learned Trial Court, on perusal of the materials on record including the evidence of P.Ws-1, 2, 3 and 4 (all found eye witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 being injured witnesses), in the light of the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5) found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case - 3 - beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the petitioners herein were held guilty and convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 year, S.I. for 02 years, S.I. for 01 year and S.I. for 03 years under each count. Besides imposition of substantive punishment, they were also fined under each head having default clauses. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order, petitioners preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2009. Learned Appellate Court upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, found that the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court did not warrant interference. Accordingly, agreeing with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, the appeal was dismissed leading to the present revision application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no materials on record justifying conviction under Section 325/149 IPC. Referring to the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5), it is contended that injuries on the person of P.Ws. 3 and 4 were found to be simple in nature. It is next submitted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are close relatives of the informant being nephew. It is thus submitted that there is no corroboration of prosecution case by any independent witnesses/source. It is next contended that the petitioners deserve a lenient sentence in view of the fact that they had to fight this litigation for over 08 years when for the first time, Trial Court recorded judgment and order of - 4 - conviction on 24.3.2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that learned Trial Court in paragraph No. 12 has considered the materials on record in order to come to the conclusion that some injuries sustained by P.Ws. 3 and 4 were grievous in nature in terms of the provisions contained under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next contended that there is concurrent findings of guilt I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the two judgments impugned in the present application. True it is that the doctor found the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 3 and 4 on head to be simple in nature but it appears from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that such injury/injuries caused continued disruption from taking up ordinary pur suit in usual course of day for more than 20 days. This finding is based on appraisal of evidence as would appear from paragraph 12 of the Trial Court’s judgment. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that they are closely related to the informant. These all pertains to the realm of appreciation of evidence. Until and unless they are shown to be wholly perverse and/or patently illegal, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with those findings of facts. One submission of learned counsel for the petitioners - 5 - requires consideration. It appears that the occurrence had taken place on 28.10.2000. Petitioners had to reel under the threat of being punished close to 9 years. Fighting criminal litigation for nine (09) years and thereby facing several excruciating circumstances is a shade of punishment which requires to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charges. It does not appear from the Trial Court judgment that the petitioners were earlier found and held guilty and convicted for any criminal charges. It further appears from the Trial Court judgment that at the time of recording conviction, petitioners were found between 27 to 52 years. Having regard to these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub-serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court and duly approved by learned Lower Appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 325/149 is reduced to R.I. for 02 years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence, both the applications are dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)