IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.381 of 2002 ----------- (Against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 1998.) ---------- =========================================================== Rajesh Mahto son of Ajodhi Mahto, resident of village Korbadha, P.S. Mufasil, Dist. Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State of Bihar …….Opposite Party. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navendu Kumar Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey,. A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cri. Appeal No. 156 of 1998 by which the judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Samastipur in S.Tr. No. 288 of 1997 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.4.1997 the informant was in her one room of Indira Awas in the evening hour. The petitioner Rajesh Mahto entered into her room and with intention to commit rape he climbed on her chest thereafter she woke up and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.381 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 2 identified the accused. She tried to raise alarm but her mouth was pressed and thereafter the accused committed rape. It is further added that after the commission of rape the accused person ran away from the place of occurrence which was seen by the witnesses on raising alarm. On her fardbeyan a case was registered. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. After charge the accused was held guilty under section 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and one year respectively and both the sentence will run concurrently. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence has taken place on 29.4.1997. More than 14 years have passed and the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also remained in custody during the trial and after the trial for a period of more than one year ten months therefore the petitioner deserves that his sentenced can be reduced. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has committed the offence therefore some compensation should be given to the victim. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.381 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 3 perusal of the record it appears that the learned trial court has discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defence carefully and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that petitioner is guilty under section 376 and 452 of the Indian penal Code. The learned appellate court has also considered the evidence of both the parties and has confirmed the judgment and the order passed by the learned trial court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order so far the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. It appears from the record that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The occurrence has taken place on 29.4.1997 at about 8 P.M. More than 14 years have passed and the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. It is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner can be modified. Accordingly the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody by the petitioner and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Civil Court Najarat within two months from today, failing which the sentence passed by the learned trial court will be revived and the petitioner will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence. If the fine is realized from the petitioner the same should be given to the victim. If she is not alive the same should be given to her heirs. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.381 of 2002 dt.20-10-2011 4 With this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Patna High Court The 20th October 2011 Rahman (NAFR)