IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.929 of 2009 SUNIL YADAV @ SUNIL SINGH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey,APP. 03 30.06.2009 Heard. Admit. Rule limited to question of sentence. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. waives the notice. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Buxar in Cr. Appeal no.37 of 2008. By the said order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence dated 28th August 2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Trial No. 229/08 has been affirmed. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 461/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. He was further held guilty and convicted under Sections 379 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months. The petitioner was also found guilty under Section 411 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed the error in not considering the 2 provisions contained under Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P.C. It is further contended that admittedly, the petitioner is the first offender. This statement of fact has been taken note of by the learned trial court but for reasons not supportable in law, the conviction has been recorded. It has further been submitted that the lower Appellate Court also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further highlights that the petitioner was found 25-26 years of age at the time of conviction. The date of occurrence in the present case is the intervening night of 23/24-09-2007. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there has been adequate consideration of the relevant facts by both the courts below, and as such, they should not be interfered with. Having considered the submissions and after going through the materials on record, this court is of the view that the sentences inflicted upon the petitioner under different sections of the Penal Code requires consideration. Sentencing an accused is a sensitive exercise. The fact that he was the first offender and that he was of young age at the time of conviction are relevant consideration. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view, that the following sentences shall sub serve the ends of justice: The petitioner is sentenced for a period of one year 3 under Section 411 of the Penal Code instead of one year and six months so recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court. He is further sentenced to a term of 01 year R.I. under Section 379 of the Penal Code. Other part(s) of sentence(s) is/are untouched. The application is accordingly dismissed with modification in sentence as indicated above. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)