IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1674 of 2010 SYED ISMAIEL …Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. ISHAQUE …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & :Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha For the State Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ----------- I. A. No.2248 of 2010 03. 06.01.2011 For the reasons disclosed in the application and submissions made in support thereof, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner was tried for the occurrence that had taken place on 17.08.1992 and held guilty under sections 429/511 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years by judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.1997, passed in G.R.No.1795 of 1992. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No.27 of 1997/07 of 1999. Learned appellate court re-appraised the evidence on record and found no justification for interfering with the judgment of the learned trial court and accordingly the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this 2 Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of recording conviction, the petitioner was found aged about 35 years. Admittedly, no past conviction has been found and recorded by trial court. It is submitted that since 1997 the petitioner is facing the ordeal/rigours of trial which consumed more than five years. Thereafter the appeal of the petitioner remained pending for about ten years. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted a cow with Lathi. Subsequently she died. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and, as such, no interference on merit is called for. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner had to face ordeal/rigours of trial for a long time. Till today, he is enmeshed in the said criminal proceeding. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1992. Materials are adequate justifying the submission of the petitioner that he had suffered enormously on account of fighting litigation. It further appears that no past conviction was found and recorded by learned trial court. The petitioner must be over 50 years of age by now. Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned shall meet the ends of justice. 3 Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded by trial court and duly affirmed by lower appellate court, the sentence awarded for the proven charge is reduced to R.I. for nine months. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )