IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.723 of 2010 BITO YADAV S/O LATE SHATRUGHAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 19.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower courts records have already been received. In view of the submissions that have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the order I propose to pass the facts of the case may not be dealt with in detail. Only the broad contours of the case may be outlined. On a tip-off that huge illegal fire arms were stacked at the house of Satrughan Yadav father of the petitioner, the house was raided in the morning of 02.08.98. Two persons were seen fleeing away. Chase was offered and they were apprehended. From the possession of the petitioner one country made pistol was recovered. The house of Satrughan Yadav was thereafter searched which resulted in recovery of few live cartridges. Resultantly, petitioner along with his father was put on trial. At the trial 06 witnesses were examined. PW’s 1 and 2 are the seizure list witnesses, who are on record stating that the signatures appearing on the seizure list were theirs. Other PW’s are said to have supported the prosecution case. Accordingly both the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act. Similarly they were 2 convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 years under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act. Both the co-convicts filed appeal being Cr.Appeal no. 50 of 2000. It is the stand of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal father namely, co-convict Satrughan Yadav died on 25.10.2004, which was brought to the notice of the Court. Learned lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence and thereafter came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had to undergo ordeal/rigors of trial for about eight years. It is recorded in the judgment of the Courts below that he is the first convict. It is further stated that at the time when the occurrence had taken place he was a young boy. The father of the petitioner is already dead. The whole responsibility is now shifted on him. On these submissions it is stated that a lenient view, in so far as the sentence is concerned, may be taken. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that there is concurrent finding(s) of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which have not been demonstrated to be perverse and/or illegal and as such they need not be interfered with. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the submission of the petitioner needs consideration. Facing a trial for a long time is a shade of punishment. The litigant has to undergo diverse excruciating 3 circumstances. Criminal litigation definitely tells upon the mental and economical condition of an accused. These are relevant consideration which needs to be kept in focus while imposing sentence. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lesser punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly the sentence of R. I. for 03 years recorded under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act is reduced to a period of R.I. for 02 years. The other part(s)/ condition(s) of the conviction is/are not altered and therefore remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)