IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.279 of 2011 ARJUN MANJHI S/O LATE RAJ BALAM MANJHI ALIAS RAJ BANSI MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHERPUR, POLICE STATION-MUFFASIL CHAPRA, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. ………..Convict Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………Opposite Party ----------- 02 07.03.2011 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice with consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010, passed on appeal being Criminal Appeal Nos. 19/10 and 10/10 (Md. Idrish Vrs. State of Bihar), whereby the same has been dismissed with modification in sentence. With respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 06.03.2000, the petitioner alongwith another were put on trial, vide Trial No. 588 of 2009. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses besides bringing on record certain documents. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial court found and held the petitioner guilty under Section 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly imposed sentence to undergo R.I. for six months with fine having default clause Under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved over the said judgment, petitioner preferred aforesaid criminal appeal. The lower appellate court re-appraised the material on record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner could be sentenced only under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal 2 Code was upheld. Conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside. Learned appellate court sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 01 years with fine having default clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the materials on record including the prosecution case, it was not possible to decipher as to whether the petitioner was driving the truck negligently or rashly and/or the vehicle coming from opposite direction was being driven rashly or negligently. The accident caused death of at least three persons. Both the courts below have appraised the materials on record and thereafter come to conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the accident wherein at least three persons lost their lives. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that occurrence had taken place in the year 2000 and the trial consumed more than 9 years. For all these years he reeled under the threat of being punished. It is submitted that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment as during these years he had to undergo vagaries of trial. Referring to trial court judgment it is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was found guilty for the first time. A submission was also made on behalf of the petitioner that he enjoys good reputation in the society. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction he was found aged about 52 years. On the strength of these facts appearing from record, it is submitted that the petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, submits that there 3 is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which has not been shown to be perverse and/or perfunctory justifying interference on merit. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. In my view, the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner deserves the lessor quantum of sentence in the facts and circumstance of this case deserves consideration. Admittedly he had to undergo the ordeal of trial for nine years. It further appears from the trial court judgment that no past conviction was found and recorded against him. At the time of recording conviction, he was assessed 52 years of age. Taking into consideration all these facts, this court is of the view that a lessor quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances, shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding conviction recorded under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate court the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for six months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain intact. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)