IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.412 of 2011 PAWAN SINGH SON OF LATE BINDESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARA, P.S.ATARI, GAYA …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Mr. K.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate & :Mr. M.K.Singh For the State :Mr. Uma Shankar, APP. ----------- 02. 07.04.2011 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage. In view of submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the facts in detail leading to the present application may not be indicated. With respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 06.07.2006, petitioner was put on trial for charge(s) punishable under section 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms act. As many as ten witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting documents in support thereof. On a consideration of materials on record including oral evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, the trial court found and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and accordingly he was convicted by order dated 01.12.2007 and was sentenced to 2 undergo R.I. for three years with fine having default clause under section 25(1-B)a and R.I. for 01 year with fine having default clause under section 26(1) of the Arms Act. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order of conviction, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 09/09/183/07. Learned appellate court reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial court. However, sentence recorded under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act was reduced to R.I. for 02 years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence was/were not touched. It is contended that petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for more than a year. The appeal thereafter remained pending for four years. Referring to trial court judgment, it is submitted that petitioner is the first convict. It is submitted that at the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 42 years. It is also contended that petitioner provides livelihood to the family. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is concurrent findings of guilty recorded by two courts below based on appraisal of evidence which do not merit interference. This Court on perusal of materials on record including the two judgments finds substance in submission of the petitioner that he deserves a lenient view insofar as sentence is concerned. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by appellate court, the sentence awarded 3 under section 25(1-B)a is reduced to R.I. for one and half years (1 ½ years). With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )