IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.491 of 2011 1. VIJAY PRASAD 2. LALAN PRASAD 3. MOHAN PRASAD ALL ARE SONS OF MATHURA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAL BAZAR P.S. BETTIAH DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioners :Mr. Radha Mohan Pathak For the State :Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, APP ----------- 02. 27.04.2011 Heard both sides. This Court finds that the matter requires consideration only on the question of sentence. Hence rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage. The three brothers stood charged under diverse sections of the Penal Code and put on trial, vide trial no. 316/01. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. On a consideration of materials brought on record, learned trial court held the petitioners guilty under sections 323,452,342 and 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, two months and one month respectively. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were also held guilty under section 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, they preferred appeal vide Cr Appeal No. 2 44/2001. Learned appellate court reappraised the evidence on record and while concurring with the findings of guilt reduced the sentence. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence whereby conviction recorded under sections 323,452,342 and 504 IPC of the Penal Code were reduced appropriately. However, conviction recorded against petitioner nos.2 and 3 under section 380 was maintained. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment(s) in order to sow that both the parties are agnate(s) and are residing across the road. They are thus neighbours. It is submitted that the occurrence, as per the complaint case, had taken place on 19.07.1995 and the trial consumed more than six years. Referring to trial court judgment, it is submitted that they are the first convicts and as such they deserve lenient sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by two courts below based on appraisal and reappraisal of evidence on record which do not merit interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Petitioners had to fight criminal litigation for more than six years. The appeal thereafter remained pending for close to ten years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time does have an adverse impact on the mental and economical condition of the litigant. The accuseds facing 3 criminal proceeding for a long time had to undergo several excruciating/exasperating circumstances which in itself is a shade of punishment. It further appears from trial court judgment that they were found and held to be first convicts. This Court is, thus, satisfied that they deserve lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial court and duly affirmed by appellate court, the sentence awarded on all the accused persons under section 452 IPC is reduced to R.I. for three months. So far as conviction recorded under section 380 IPC is concerned, the same is reduced to R.I. for four months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain unchanged. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )