IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1566 of 2010 1. ABDUL GANI 2. AKHTAR ALAM 3. MOKHTAR ALAM 4. SAFFIULLAH 5. TARIK ANWAR PETITIONER NOS. 2 TO 5 SONS OF ABDUL GANI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BALBHADRAPUR, P.S.- BIRPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP 6 18.01.2011 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower Court’s records have already been received. With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The five petitioners herein are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2010 passed on their appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 17/2009 (S) by learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa whereby the appeal was dismissed out rightly. Petitioners were tried for an offence having been committed on 25.6.2005 leading to the lodgment of Birpur P.S. case no. 64 of 2005 which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 165/2006 (State versus Abdul Gani and Ors) whereby on a consideration of the materials on record, all of them were found and held guilty under Sections 307, 323, 447 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for diverse periods. The maximum sentence has been recorded against them under Section 307 - 2 - IPC wherein they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Apart from those, petitioner No. 1 was also found and held guilty under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years. The prosecution case as incorporated in paragraph 2 of the Trial Court judgment disclose that both the parties are agnates. The occurrence had taken place with regard to possession of a particular piece of land. It further appears from the Trial Court judgment that a case has also been lodged by the present accused party against the present prosecution side which is pending. The learned Trial Court in the light of materials brought on record including the evidence of prosecution witnesses has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) framed against them and accordingly, they were held guilty and sentenced for diverse periods. Learned Trial Court in the last paragraph of its judgment has observed as under: “Regard being had to the age, antecedent, nature of offence and the circumstances in which the offence was committed I am of the view that although the accused persons have committed offence but it is not a crime rather it was quarrel with regard to land dispute as both parties are patidars and also counter case is still going on in the court of S.D.J.M. Birpur. So, the convicts in my opinion deserve leniency. Keeping leniency, I awarded all the convicts namely 1. Abdul Gani @. Mukhtar Alam 3. Akhatar Alam 4. Saffiullah and 5. Tarik Anwar undergo R.I. for 4 years under Section 307 I.P.C. They all are further awarded sentence to go R.I. for a period of 3 years each u/s 325 I.P.C.. They all are further awarded sentence to go R.I. 6 month each 323, 447, 504 I.P.C.. The convict Abdul Gani is further awarded - 3 - sentence to undergo R.I. 2 years u/s 379 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently in my opinion it will meet the ends of justice.“ Aggrieved over the said judgment, the petitioners herein preferred the appeal which was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly, there is a counter version of the case which is pending when the impugned conviction was recorded. It is next contended that considering the materials brought on record, learned Trial Court has observed that the parties appears to have fought over possession of a particular piece of land. It is also apparent from the judgment that both the parties are agnates. Referring to Ext-I (injury report), it is submitted that the informant (P.W. 7) received two injuries which were found inflicted on the head as well as on the left forearm. Rest injuries were found to be simple. The petitioners fought criminal litigation for over four years. Abdul Gani at the time of recording conviction was found aged about 60 years whereas other petitioners were also found fairly aged. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the attending facts of the case which are apparent from the two judgments, a lesser punishment would sub-serve the cause of justice. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submits that true it is that learned Trial Court has observed that it was a simple fight over possession of a piece of land but nonetheless considering the materials on record, learned Trial Court has - 4 - found the charges proved which have been reevaluated/reappreciated by the appellate Court and affirmed. It is the submission that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. The petitioners definitely had to undergo ordeals of trial for more than 04 years. It is further seen from the judgments that they are close agnates. This Court also finds from the judgment that there is a counter version of the present occurrence which is in the shape of a prosecution launched by one of the accuseds namely Md. Musa (since deceased). Fighting criminal litigation for a long time and thereby to undergo several exasperating circumstances is/are factors which have to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned Trial Court was driven to observe that this was not the crime rather it was quarrel between agnates. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court is of the view that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub-serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Sections 307 and 325 IPC are reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a - 5 - half years. Other part/parts, condition/conditions of sentence so imposed by learned Trial Court duly affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)