Criminal Revision No.392 of 2002 Against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in Cri.Appeal No.46 1998. ========================================================== = 1.Sukhari Sah S/o Prasad Sah 2.Bhagwat Sah S/o Paras Sah Both residents of Village-Bairiya, P.S.Bairiya, District- West Champaran…… Petitioners. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2.Gajadhar Sah S/o Ramdhari Sah. 3.Madan Sah S/o Gajadhar Sah. Both residents of Village- Bairiya, P.S. Bairiya, District-West Champaran. …O.Ps. For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ========================================================== P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the Judgment and order dated 16.03.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in Cr.Appeal No.46 of 1998 by which the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the Judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettiah, in Tr.No.382/98 (G.R.No.932 of 1985). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.9.1985 at about 9.00 A.M. the informant, namely, Gajadhar Sah, and his son Madan Sah were strengthening the ridge of their field. In the meantime, the accused Gautam Devi,Shanti Devi, and Kalawati Devi came there and protested. Kalawati Devi snatched spade from the son of the informant and inflicted spade blow causing injury on his left Patna High Court CR. REV. No.392 of 2002 dt.24-10-2011 2 hand. The other accused also assaulted him with fists and slaps. The informant resisted because the aforesaid three ladies were his younger brothers’ wives. The informant and his son proceeded towards police station for lodging the case. When they reached near Bairia Nahar, the other accused Paras gave Bana blow on head and the other accused, namely, Sukhari Sah, Bhagwat Sah, Ekbal Sah, Nathuni Mukhiya armed with lathi assaulted the informant restraining them from going to the police station for lodging a case. The co-villagers came there and saw the occurrence. 3. On the fardbeyan of the informant Bairiya P.S. Case No.60 of 1985 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation charge sheet was submitted , cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Session. Thereafter the case was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettia by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettia under section 228(1) Cr.P.C. 5. The petitioners were charged under sections 147,323 and 341 of the I.P.C. After trial the accused Shanti Devi and Gautam were acquitted and the rest other accused were held guilty under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Kalawati Devi was convicted under section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and other accused persons were held guilty under section 147 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months respectively and all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.392 of 2002 dt.24-10-2011 3 6. Thereafter the convicts preferred Cr.Appeal No.46 of 1998 against the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 passed by the learned trial court. 7. After hearing the appellate court set aside the substantive sentence passed against the accused Nathuni Mukhiya, Ekbal Sah, Sukhari Sah, Bhagwat Sah and Kalawati Devi and the sentences of the petitioners, Sukhari Sah and Bhagwat Sah under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was modified and reduced to the extent that they will go under R.I. for period of six months under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three months under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the other accused were directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs.1000/- each with one surety of the like amount each for the period of one year to keep peace and to be of a good behaviour. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the appellate stage the case was compromised between both the parties., but no order could be passed on compromise petition as the victim Madan Sah, son of the informant could not sign on the compromise petition. It has been submitted that the petitioners have also been in custody for more than two weeks. They have no criminal antecedent. Both the parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them. The petitioners are the first offenders. 9. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners. 10. After hearing learned counsel for both the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.392 of 2002 dt.24-10-2011 4 parties and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the lower court record it appears that the conviction of the petitioners is correct. The occurrence has taken place on 2.9.1985. More than 26 years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. They have also remained in custody for some time. They have no criminal antecedent. 11. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. With this modification in sentence this revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. The 24th October, 2011. AnilKrSinha/N.A.F.R. (Amaresh Kumar Lal )