Criminal Revision No.580 of 2002 Against the judgment and order dated 25.2.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist. Class, Sitamarhi, in G.R.Case No.1345 of T.N.306 of 1997 as well as Judgment dated 6.4.2002 passed by Fast Track Court No.1, Sitamarhi, in Cr.Appeal No.21 of 1997 of 6 of 2001. ========================================================== Hawaldar Paswan son of Bifai Paswan, resident of Village- Kuari Madan, P.S.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ========================================================== = For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For O. P. No.2 : No one. ========================================================== P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. Office is directed to add Inar Devi, the complainant as opposite party no.2. 1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. 2. No one appears for the Opposite party no.2 informant though after issuance of notice the informant has already appeared through vakalatnama. 3. .Accused petitioner has preferred this Patna High Court CR. REV. No.580 of 2002 dt.16-11-2011 2 revision application against the Judgment and order dated 6th April,2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Sitamarhi, in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1997 of 6 of 2001 by which the order of conviction and sentence dated 25.2.1997 passed by the learned trial court in G.R. No.1345 of 1997 Trial No.6 of 2001 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.10.1995 at about 7 A.M. the petitioner and one co- accused, Jimdar Paswan came to the darwaza of the informant, Inar Devi, abused her and called her a dian. Jimedar Paswan caught hold of the hands of the informant and Hawaldar Paswan, the petitioner put night soil in her mouth and assaulted her. 5. On the ferd beyan of the informant Majorganj P.S. Case No.126 of 1995 was instituted against both the accused. 6. After trial both the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 341 of I.P.C. and six months each under sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently vide order dated 25.2.1997. Thereafter the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1997 against the order of the trial court. 7. After hearing both the parties the appeal had been dismissed and the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court has been Patna High Court CR. REV. No.580 of 2002 dt.16-11-2011 3 confirmed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 13.10.1995. More than 16 years have passed. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. The petitioners have remained in custody during the trial as well as after dismissal of the criminal appeal. Almost he has remained in custody for about one month. 9. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 more than 16 years prior and he has remained in custody for one month. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner can be reduced. 12. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 13. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 14. In the result,with this modification in sentence this revision application is disposed of. The Patna High Court. The 16th November,2011. AnilKrSinha / N.A.F.R. ( Amaresh Kumar Lal)