IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1738 of 2010 YADO LAL MAHATO …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. B.N.Mishra & :Mr. S. N.Rai For the State :Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- I. A. No. 2347 of 2010 04. 21.01.2011 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application. It is submitted that the counsel who was engaged by the petitioner could not present himself before the court while the appeal was being considered on merit. Learned counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the application in order to submit that these facts have prevented him from taking steps in filing the revision application within time. Considering the submissions of the petitioner that the appeal was disposed of in absence of the counsel who was engaged by the petitioner, the application (I.A.No.2347 of 2010) is allowed and delay condoned. 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, this application is now finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th March,2004, passed on Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 1994 (Yado Lal 2 Mahto & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar), whereby the appeal preferred by him was dismissed. The petitioner along with another co- accused was tried for offences punishable under sections 304, 323 and 325 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the grand-son of the informant had gone to pluck bamboo leaves which was objected to by the petitioner and another co-accused. Both the parties laid title and possession over the orchard. It is the prosecution case that the petitioner assaulted the informant on his leg by ‘Lathi’ causing fracture. In order to prove the charge(s), as many as ten witnesses were examined, besides exhibiting documents. On a consideration of materials available on record, learned trial court found and held the petitioner guilty under section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years with fine having default clause. Other sections under which he was charged, were not found sustainable. Accordingly he was acquitted of those charges. Aggrieved over the said judgment and conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 15.12.1988. As per the allegation in the FIR, he is said to have assaulted on the leg portion of the informant. Both parties, as per the prosecution case, laid their respective claim of title and possession over the orchard from where the grand-son of the informant was found plucking bamboo leaves. Referring to the trial court judgment, it is contended that the petitioner was not 3 found and held guilty for any other criminal case previously. A submission was made on behalf of the petitioner to release him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act which was not acceded to considering the allegation. The trial in the present case consumed more than six years. It appears that the appeal thereafter remained pending for more than ten years. Accordingly, the petitioner is pursuing the present litigation since 1988. It is the submission of the petitioner that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time should be kept in focus while inflicting the sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the contrary, submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below based on appraisal of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 15.12.1988. The trial consumed more than eight years. The appeal thereafter remained pending for about ten years. The occurrence had taken place over the claim and counter claim laid by the parties in respect of the orchard from where the grand-son of the informant was seen plucking bamboo leaves. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, this Court is convinced that a lessor quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, as 4 recorded by learned appellate court, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for two years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain unaltered/unchanged. With the above modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )