IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.927 of 2009 Sheopujan Ram Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mathura Paswan ----------- 3. 24.06.2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I. B. Pandey, learned APP for the State. Rule limited to question of sentence. Learned APP waives service of notice. With the consent of the parties, this application is disposed of at this stage itself. The present application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th May,2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV, Aurangabad in Cr.Appeal No.43/2007/89/2009, whereby the same has been dismissed affirming the judgment and order dated 30.4.2007, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Aurangabad in Tr.No.33/07. Learned trial court held the petitioner guilty under sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and R.I. for six months respectively. He has also been imposed with fine under both sections with default clause. The facts giving rise to the present application are as under: On 11.3.1997, the informant along with his son (deceased) was going on the road. The prosecution case is that - 2 - in the meanwhile the bus driver (petitioner) driving rashly and negligently dashed against his son which caused injuries in his head and he died on the spot instantaneously. In course of trial, the prosecution appears to have examined as many as seven witnesses. On appraisal of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court found and held that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial court convicted the petitioner as noted above. The petitioner filed appeal which was disposed of in the manner already indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution are deficient inasmuch as the I.O. of the case has also not been examined to prove the prosecution case. It is further contended that the learned trial court committed an error in not considering the provisions contained in sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the petitioner, admittedly, was the first offender. It has further been submitted that the lower appellate court committed the same mistake and confirmed the conviction without considering the relevant provision of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further highlights that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 11.3.1997, whereas the trial court recorded the conviction ten years thereafter on 30.4.2007 which was subsequently affirmed without any modification by the lower - 3 - appellate court under order dated 18.5.2009. It has thus been contended that on account of prolonged litigation the petitioner continued to suffer and remained under the threat of possible conviction for long time. This itself is a punishment. Mental distress and pecuniary loss in fighting litigation for a long time of course is/are relevant considerations that need to be kept in focus while awarding sentence for the proved charge(s). It is contended that the petitioner was an aged person and was providing livelihood to the entire family. By now the petitioner is aged about more than 60 years. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the judgment and order passed by the court below. Having considered the submissions and looking to both the judgments passed by the courts below, this Court finds that there are definitely relevant mitigating circumstances which required consideration while imposing punishment. The trial court has awarded maximum punishment provided under the provisions of the Act for which he was charged. Keeping all the facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the following sentence(s) shall subserve the cause of justice. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 304A IPC instead of two years, as awarded by the courts below. - 4 - There shall be no modification in other part(s) of the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate court. With this modification in the sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )