IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.583 of 2010 Surendra yadav S/o Jai Yadav, R/o Bhatauli, P.S. Sandesh, Dist. Bhojpur. --- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --- Opp.Party. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.J.Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ----------- 03. 02.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State of Bihar. With the consent of the parties, the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein was tried along with other co- convicts and held guilty under Sections 325, 341 and 323 of the Penal Code. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years, and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause(s), 01 month S.I. and 06 month R.I. with fine containing default clause(s) respectively. All the convicts including the petitioner herein preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 61 of 2006, before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Fast Track Court, Ara, Bhojpur, which was considered and dismissed. It appears from the record that learned trial Court placed reliance on the findings of the informant and PW’s 2 and 4, who were found to have sustained injuries. On a consideration of the materials on record, it was found and held that the prosecution 2 has been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Learned lower appellate Court once again reappraised the evidence and dealt with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. Paragraph no.5 of the judgment would show that the contention of the petitioner (appellant) was dealt with by the learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that another aspect of the matter needs examination. Highlighting the prosecution case, it is submitted that on a trivial issue between the parties the occurrence had taken place. Both the parties are agnates. Learned trial Court has found and recorded that there is no past criminal history against the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of the trial petitioner was found to be aged about 38 years only. In his submission, these aspects of the matter entitle the petitioner for lesser punishment. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below and as such they do not require to be interfered with on merit. It appears from the materials available on record that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 09.01.1995. The trial Court has disposed of the case in the year 2006. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner was made to undergo ordeal/rigors of trial for close to a decade. Fighting a criminal litigation for such a long time and thereby labouring under the threat of being punished definitely is a relevant consideration which the Court of law has to bear in mind while imposing sentence. Its further seen that there is 3 no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. Parties are agnates who fought on trivial matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below do not justify any interference as there appears to be no illegality and/ or perversity in appreciating the evidence available on record. However, keeping in view the facts highlighted hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment, in the facts of the case, shall meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the sentence of R.I. for 03 years recorded under Section 325 of the Penal Code is reduced to a period of 02 years R.I. Other part/condition of sentence(s) recorded by the learned trial Court shall remain unaltered/untouched. With this modification in sentence(s) only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)