IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.27 of 2011 1. RAMNATH PRASAD 2. SACHIDANAND PRASAD 3. MANOJ KUMAR ---- PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY For the petitioners : Mr. Satish Chandra, & Mrs. Basanti Kumari, Advocates For the State : Mr.R.N.Jha,APP ----------- 02 24.01.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration on the point of sentence. 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. Three petitioners have joined hands in assailing the judgment and order dated 27th September 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court no. 5), Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal no. 105 of 1997, whereby their appeal stood dismissed. With regard to an occurrence that had taken place on 31.08.1988, the petitioners herein along with one another co accused were put on trial vide Tr. No. 1145 of 1997. Altogether 09 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution besides exhibiting documents in order to prove the charge(s) against the petitioners. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court held all the petitioners guilty under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 2 undergo S.I. for 03 months. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were further found guilty under Section 325 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 year. Aggrieved over by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioners preferred aforesaid appeal which, as noticed, stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the prosecution case, petitioner no.1 is said to have assaulted the informant (PW8) with ‘kudal’ below his waist. It is the submission of the petitioners that no corresponding incised injury was found on the person of PW8. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, charge is/was that both of them armed with ‘Loh banda’ assaulted brother of the informant (PW2) when he tried to intervene. It is submitted referring to the evidence of doctor (PW4) that only swelling was found on the person of PW2. It is submitted that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 31.08.88. They had to face the ignominity in facing trial for more than 09 years. For all these years they had to reel under the threat of being punished. It is submitted that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time is a relevant consideration for inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). Referring to the trial Court’s judgment, it is submitted that there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioners. It is submitted that at the time of conviction they were found comparatively young. On these facts appearing from record, it has been contended that petitioners deserve a lesser quantum of sentence. 3 Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments and submits that there is/are concurrent finding of guilt recorded against the accused persons which are based on appraisal of evidence on record and do not call for any interference on merit. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. For an occurrence that had taken place on 31.08.88, the petitioners had to fight the present criminal litigation for more than 09 years when the trial Court recorded judgment and order of conviction on 19.09.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be right in his submission that the trial Court has not found them previously guilty in any other case and convicted thereunder. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction petitioner no.1 was found aged about 30 years whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were found aged about 26 and 20 years respectively. Considering the prosecution case as projected through the trial, the fact that the trial in the present case consumed more than 09 years as also the fact that petitioners were not previously found convicted for any criminal charge, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, would sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence imposed on petitioner no.1, namely Ram Nath Prasad under Section 323 4 of the Penal Code is reduced to S.I. for 02 months. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely Sachidanand Prasad and Manoj Kumar are concerned, their sentence awarded under Section 325 of the Penal Code is reduced to S.I. for 06 months. 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.)