IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.389 of 2002 (Against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No.164/1998) ================================================== 1. Mahesi Sah, son of Late Ramkishan Sah. 2. Jivan Sah, son of Mahesi Sah. 3. Yaddu Sah, son of Mahesi Sah. 4. Hari Sah, son of Mahesi Sah. 5. Asharfi Sah, son of Late Gango Sah. 6. Bhola Sah, son of Late Thingar Sah. 7. Ladu Sah @Faltua, son of Late Bithani Sah. 8. Ramashray Sah, son of Late Ram Shishiar Sah. 9. Yogendra Sah, son of Mahesi Sah. (All residents of village-Salempur, P.S.-Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur) .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.N.Thakur, A.P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No.164/1998 by which Patna High Court CR. REV. No.389 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 2 the judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Dalsinghsarai in C.R. No.351/1987, Trial No.43/1998 convicting the petitioners under Sections 452, 447, 323 and 427 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year, six months, six months and one month with a fine of Rs.500/-each have been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.10.1987 at about 2.00 P.M, the complainant Shivji Mahto was constructing his house over the land in respect of his Basgit Parcha, the accused petitioners armed with various weapons entered into his house and brutally assaulted him. When his son Ram Chandra Mahto came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused petitioners. They demolished the thatched house of the complainant and removed some articles worth Rs.700/-from his house. The complaint was filed in the court of learned S.D.J.M, Dalsinghsarai. After inquiry, prima facie case was found against them. After the trial, the accused were held guilty and were sentenced, as aforesaid. Thereafter, they filed Cr. Appeal No.164/1998, which has been dismissed by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.389 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 3 learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment and order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence has taken place on 14.10.1987. More than 24 years have passed and they have been suffering from mental agony. They have also been in custody for some time. He has further submitted that the compromise petition was filed before the learned appellate court on 15.10.2001, but it has not been considered. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. The occurrence has taken place on 14.10.1987. More than 24 years have passed and they have been suffering from mental agony. They have also been in custody for some time. It further appears that the compromise petition has been filed on behalf of both the parties, but it has not been considered. The offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. is Patna High Court CR. REV. No.389 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 4 not compoundable. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is fit case in which the sentence of the petitioners should be reduced/modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.1000/-each. The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/-each in the trial court and file a receipt thereof within a period of two months, failing which, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will revive and the petitioners will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. In case the fine is realized, it will be payable to the complainant, who is the victim of the occurrence. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 20th of October, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)