IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.28 of 2011 1. RAM LAKHAN RAI @ RAM LAKSHAN RAI 2. KAILASH RAI 3. KAPLESHWAR RAI 4. UPENDRA RAI --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAVINDRA PRASAD YADAV --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP 02 10.01.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by learned appellate Court ( Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.1 Sitamarhi) in Cr. Appeal no. 74 of 2009/27 of 2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed. For an occurrence committed on 12.11.2006 petitioners were put on trial vide Tr. No. 626 of 2009. On a consideration of the evidence on record learned trial Court found them guilty under Sections 323, 341 of the Penal Code and sentence to undergo R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for one month respectively. They were, however, acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 447, 379 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved over the order of conviction and sentence petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal which stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 petitioners had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for more than 03 years. It would appear from the prosecution case itself that both the parties were claiming the right title and interest over the disputed land for which the occurrence is said to have been committed. In the submission of the petitioners they have already suffered on account of facing trial for about 03 years and thereafter in pursuing the appeal arising therefrom. It is next contended that petitioner no.1, namely Ram Lakhan Rai @ Ram Lakshan Rai, at the time of conviction was found aged more than 60 years. It is thus submitted that the petitioners deserve consideration so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, points out that learned trial Court has found these petitioners were earlier enmeshed in a criminal offence and were sentenced for diverse periods. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard submits that for the same land an occurrence had earlier taken place in which the petitioners were held guilty under minor Sections of the Penal Code. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this much is evident that they had to fight this criminal litigation for more than 03 years when ultimately they were held guilty by the trial Court. Thereafter the appeal also remained pending for more than 03 years. Admittedly from perusal of the prosecution case it appears that the parties are laying their claims and title over the disputed land. 3 Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view so far as sentence(s) for the proven charge(s) shall meet the ends of justice. Consequently the sentence awarded to the petitioner no.1, namely Ram Lakhan Rai @ Ram Lakshan Rai under Section 323 of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 03months. So far as rest of the petitioners are concerned, the sentence awarded under Section 323 of the Penal Code is reduced to R.I. for 04 months. The other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, imposed by learned lower appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)