IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.405 of 2011 RAVI KUMAR RAI @ MUKESH KUMAR RAI, SON OF SURENDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANDEY PATTI, POLICE STATION, BUXAR(MUFFASIL), DISTRICT-BUXAR. …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Adv. & :Mr. Binod Kumar Singh For the State :Mr. Ram Naresh Roy, 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, the application is now being disposed of at this stage. In view of submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, entire factual background out of which the present application has arisen need not be set out. Petitioner was made accused in a case instituted under sections 379 and 411 IPC with an allegation that two accused persons had snatched the Mangalsutra and golden chain of the informant who was returning home at about 10 P.M.. They were tried by learned trial court, vide Tr. No.267 of 2010. At trial, four P.Ws. were examined on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting documents. On a consideration of materials on record, the trial court found that the charges punishable under sections 379 and 411 IPC have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he was held 2 guilty thereunder and sentenced to undergo S. I. for three years under each head/count. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No 51/2010. Learned appellate court reappraised the evidence on record and found that materials on record were convincing enough to justify the conviction under both sections. However, considering the other aspects of the matter, the sentence awarded by trial court was reduced to S.I. for two and half years (2 ½ years) under each head/count. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to trial court judgment, submits that at the time of recording conviction he was found barely 21 years of age. It is submitted with reference to the said judgment that a plea was made on behalf of the petitioner that he is the first convict and sole bread earner in the family. It is contended that at least for more than a year the petitioner had to undergo rigours/ordeal of trial. Based on these facts appearing from records, it is submitted that petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which have not been demonstrated to be perverse and/or patently illegal meriting interference on merit. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the parties. The occurrence had taken place on 21.06.2009 whereas the trial court ultimately found and held the petitioner 3 guilty by judgment and order dated 10.05.2010. The appeal consumed more then nine months. It is further seen from trial court judgment that a submission was advanced that he is the first convict which was not controverted by learned APP. Having regard to these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial court and duly approved/affirmed by appellate court, the sentence awarded under sections 379 and 411 IPC is reduced to two years. Other part(s)condition(s) of sentence, if any, remain untouched/unaltered. With modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )