IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1448 of 2010 1. RAJU KUMAR SAH S/O JAGDISH SAH 2. GOPAL SAH S/O JAGDISH SAH 3. JAGDISH SAH S/O LATE CHHATHU SAH --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM BHOJU PODDAR S/O LATE MARO PODDAR --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 05.10.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners it is not necessary to set out in detail factual matrix of the case leading to the present revision application. Petitioners along with few others were tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Munger in Tr. No. 85 of 2003 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147,323 and 448 of the Penal Code with respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 29.02.1991. At the trial in all 08 prosecution witnesses were examined. Learned trial Court appraised the evidence of PWs 1,2,3, 6 and the Doctor ( PW8) and came to the conclusion that the evidence on record were sufficient to prove the charge(s). Accordingly they were held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year under each head. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction two appeals seem to have been filed being Cr. Appeal nos. 103 of 2003 and 106 of 2003. Both the 2 appeals were heard analogously and disposed of by order dated 16th August 2010, whereby on a reappraisal of the evidence on record learned lower appellate Court( Additional District and Sessions Judge-2) Munger came to the conclusion that charge punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code was not found substantiated against petitioner no.3, namely Jagdish Sah. Accordingly he was acquitted of the said charge. However, learned lower appellate Court found adequate evidence on record to justify conviction of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely Raju Kumar Sah and Gopal Sah under Sections 147,323 and 448 where as petitioner no.3 was held guilty under Sections 147 and 448 of the Penal Code. The sentence(s) so imposed by learned trial Court was not interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.3 is the father of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1991. At the time of recording conviction petitioner no. 3 was found aged about 52 years. The trial consumed 12 years. During all these years the petitioners were made to reel under the threat of being punished. They had to undergo the ordeal/rigors of trial. It is contended that fighting a criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment. It is next contended that on a very trivial issue the occurrence had taken place. Both the parties are co-villagers. Learned trial Court also found that there was no previous conviction and/or criminal proceeding pending against the accused persons. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the petitioners deserve a lenient sentence. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below 3 which is/are based on appraisal of the evidence on record which have not been demonstrated to be perverse or perfunctory. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It is seen from the trial Court’s judgment that in the year 2003 petitioner no.3 was found aged about 52 years. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were found young persons. It is further seen that the charge, so far as the assault is concerned, has not been found substantiated against petitioner no. 3 by the learned lower appellate Court. There is no past criminal antecedent or past criminal record against the petitioners. They had to fight a criminal litigation for more than 18 years by now. Keeping in focus all these submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall meet the end of justice. Consequently the sentence awarded against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely Raju Kumar Sah and Gopal Sah under Sections 147,323 and 448 are reduced to R.I. for 04 months under each head. So far as petitioner no.3, namely, Jagdish Sah is concerned, the sentence awarded under Section 147 and 448 of the Penal Code are reduced to R.I. for 02 months under each head. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)