IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1750 of 2010 1. LAKHPATI MAHTO 2. MAHENDRA MAHTO ---- PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . --- OPP. PARTY For the petitioners : Mr. Sudharshan Sharma, Advocate. ----------- 02 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Nobody appears on behalf of the State. The father and son are the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16. 09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court no.2, Nawadah in Cr. Appeal no. 16 of 2005/14 of 2010 ( Lakh Pati Mahto & three others versus State of Bihar), whereby while upholding the conviction recorded under Section 324 of the Penal Code the sentence recorded thereunder has been reduced to R.I. for 06 months. Let it be recorded that learned trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, convicted the petitioners under Section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that over a trivial matter i.e. for construction and flow of Nala brothers fought against each other, as a result whereof, two cases were lodged. In the case lodged by the present petitioners they accused(s) have been found and held guilty under minor Sections of the Penal Code and have been given the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act. It is next submitted that the 2 petitioners had to fight criminal litigation for about 15 years with regard to an occurrence that had taken place on 02.04.1990. The F.I.R. was drawn on 03.04.1990. Trial Court ultimately found them guilty under Section 324 of the Penal Code by impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2005. It is the submission of the petitioners that fighting criminal litigation for a long period of time is a shade of punishment which needs to be taken into consideration while inflicting appropriate sentence for the proven charge(s). I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Paragraph no.3 of the appellate Court’s Judgment states that one of the grounds on which the appeal was pressed that there was a counter case wherein conviction was recorded but the accuseds were given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, this Court is not able to gather from the materials on record as to under which Section of the Penal Code the accuseds of the another case (counter case) were held guilty. This much is evident from the evidence on record including the trial Court’s judgment as well as assertions made in paragraph no. 13 of the memo of revision that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners who are father and son. It is further apparent from the record that there was two versions with regard to the occurrence. The counter case lodged by the present petitioner also resulted in conviction but the convicts of the said case have been let off under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. 3 Having regard to these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed under Section 324 of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 01 month. The other part(s)/ condition(s) of sentence shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)