IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1001 of 2010 SAHDEO MAHTO, SON OF LATE BANDHU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASAURA, POLICE STATION AREARI, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B. Ray ‘Raman’, APP ----------- 2 13.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waves notice on behalf of the State L.C.Rs have already been received. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Sole petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days and 02 years respectively. He was imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default clause under Section 325IPC. It appears from the trial court judgment that the petitioner was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 307IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner resulted in dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was found aged about 60 years at the time of conviction was not found carrying any previous conviction. Referring to the prosecution case, it is submitted that the both parties are co-villagers. It is also contended that the injuries allegedly sustained by the informant (P.W. 4) was found superficial in nature. Referring to the deposition of doctor (P.W. 8), it is submitted that he is on record stating that this 2 injury was also possible by fall. On these facts, it is submitted that a lesser punishment may be imposed on the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the impugned orders. It is contended that both the courts below have reappraised the evidence brought on record by the prosecution whereafter finding of guilt was recorded by the learned trial court and duly affirmed by learned appellate court. On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this court finds that apart from the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is also seen that he was made to undergo the ordeal of trial for about 4 years. Fighting a criminal litigation for a long time is a relevant consideration which has to be borne in mind while imposing sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court, while upholding the conviction, reduces the sentence imposed under Section 325 IPC. Petitioner shall undergo S.I. for 01 year instead of 02 years imposed by the Trial Court. It is clarified that other part/condition of sentence(s) imposed by the learned trial court remains untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )