IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.469 of 2011 UPENDRA SINGH, son of Dina Nath Singh, resident of village-Gorsar, P.S.-Ghoshi, District-Jehanabad. .........Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 22.4.2011 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is satisfied that the matter required consideration on the question of sentence. Hence Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. Waives service of notice. Heard with the consent of the parties the application is being finally disposed of. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.1.2011 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa at Nalanda whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. The conviction recorded by learned Trial Court under Section 338 was set aside. However, the conviction recorded by the trial court under section 304A and 279 I.P.C. were sustained. With respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 2 31.10.1995 the petitioner was put on trial vide T.R. No.492 of 2006, wherein six prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents to substantiate the charge(s). On a conspectus of the materials on record learned trial court found and held him guilty under Section 338, 304A and 279 I.P.C. and sentenced for diverse periods. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order of conviction the appeal was preferred which was disposed of in the manner noted herein above. Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions. It is contended that the occurrence had taken place on 31.9.1995. The trial consumed close to eleven years. It is submitted that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time and thereby to suffer the rigours of trial is a shade of punishment. It is also contended that at the time of recording conviction the petitioner was found aged about 32 years. It is argued that the petitioner provides livelihood to his family. From the trial Court judgment it is not apparent that he was earlier found and held 3 guilty in any criminal proceeding. It is submitted that keeping the petitioner in custody would have telling effects on the entire family. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is / are concurrent findings of guilt based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal meriting interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the petitioner had to suffer the rigours of trial for about eleven years. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 whereas the Trial Court ultimately found and held him guilty in the year 2006. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time has serious repercussions and telling effects on the mental and economical condition of the litigant as during these periods the petitioner must have undergone excruciating circumstances. It further appears that there is no past conviction recorded against 4 him. Considering all these aspects this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentences, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction as recorded by lower appellate court the sentence awarded under Section 304A is reduced to R.I. for 6 months. Petitioner is also imposed a fine of rupees one thousand in default whereof undergo further period of S.I. for one month. Other part(s) of sentence remain intact. With the aforesaid modification in sentence only the application is dismissed. PN ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)