IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.948 of 2009 1. BRAJESH KUMAR RAI @ PARDESIYA @ TUNTUN RAI 2. RAJ NATH SINGH ------------------------ PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 3.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2009 passed in Cr.Appeal No. 18 of 2009 by Sri Akhilesh Chandra, Sessions Judge, Darbhanga whereby he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.3.2009 passed in S.T.No. 63 of 2007 arising out of Baheri P.S.Case No. 51 of 2005 (G.R.No. 72 of 2005) by Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-1st Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Sub-Judge-II, Darbhanga, by which petitioners were convicted under sections 307 and 387 IPC and 27 of Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 307 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years along with fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 387 IPC. Petitioners were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under section 27 of the Arms Act, with a direction that the sentences so awarded would run concurrently. On the point of conviction, some infirmities are pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out that the case was lodged against four unknown persons, for them it is said that they came to brick kiln of the informant on 20.4.2005 at 2.30 pm. They demanded ransom and shot firing also but firing did not hit any one rather Dicky of motorcycle. In course of investigation, the informant came to know 2 the identity of miscreants through newspaper as petitioners were arrested by the police, their photographs were published and thereafter in Dock also they were identified. According to learned counsel, some T.I. parade should be conducted for identification at the earliest after arrest of petitioners and without the same, identification should not be accepted for conviction but petitioners remained in custody in course of trial as well as while filing this revision application, since 16.12.2006 till today. So after remaining in custody for near about three years pressing the illegality committed for conviction is not so relevant. The sentence is questioned only to observe the period undergone by petitioners sufficient towards their sentences. Taking into consideration non-delivery of any amount and no injury to any one followed by identification in Dock only, I am of the view that period undergone by the petitioners is sufficient towards their sentence. Accordingly, same is observed also. This revision application is partly allowed on the point of sentence to minimize the same after modification to the period undergone. The conviction is confirmed. Fine amount imposed by the trial court is also exonerated and judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed for the rest. Petitioners shall be released from custody in the aforesaid case, if not wanted in other case. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioners. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)