IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.916 of 2010 SUNIL YADAV S/O LATE BHAHMADEO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 27.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the present revision application is being disposed of finally at this stage itself. The sole petitioner herein was tried and convicted by learned trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of the Penal Code. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for 02 years with fine respectively. Appeal of the petitioner being Cr. Appeal no. 18 of 2005, failed. The prosecution case in a nut shell, is that on the date of occurrence i.e. intervening night of 10.03.1993 and 11.03.1993, four accused persons arrived at the house of the informant (PW-7), and made an attempt to unfold and take away the live stock of the informant. In the mean time wife of the informant woke up and caught hold the mother of the petitioner. She was, however, relieved by force by two accused persons including the petitioner. Following morning father and son (petitioner) came to the ‘darwaja’ of the informant armed with ‘lathi’ and ‘bhala’ and assaulted the prosecution side. It is the prosecution case that by the assault of the petitioner, the informant (PW-7) received injuries. At the trial prosecution examined altogether 07 2 witnesses in order to prove the charge(s). Certain documents were also produced. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found and held that the prosecution has been able to prove charge(s) beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. It may be pointed out here that doctor (PW-4) has not even been cross examined by the prosecution. Accordingly the petitioner was convicted in the manner noted hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials available on record indicate that the father of the petitioner, namely, Brahmadeo Yadav (since dead) and the father of the informant are own brothers. It is next submitted that the occurrence had taken place way back in the year 1993 whereas the conviction was recorded in March 2005. For all these 12 years the petitioner was made to fight this criminal litigation and thereby to suffer mentally as well as economically. It is next contended that for all these years he was made to reel under the threat of being punished. It is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus. Referring to the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it is contended that he has not been found convicted previously in any case. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower appellate Court. These findings do not suffer from any patent illegality meriting interference on merit. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf 3 of the parties and perused the materials placed on record. This Court, agreeing with the second part of the submission of the petitioner, is satisfied that in the particular facts of the case, a lesser punishment/sentence shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence(s) recorded under Section 325 of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 12 months. Fine imposed under the said Section is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand). In default of payment of fine, petitioner shall further undergo R.I. for one month. Other part(s) of the sentence(s) remain untouched. It is made clear that if the fine is realized the same shall be paid to the informant (PW-7). With this modification in sentence(s), the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)