IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.413 of 2009 1. BIHARI SAH 2. RAM CHANDRA SAH 3. JAGESHWAR SAH 4. NAGESHWAR SAH 5. PARMESHWAR SAH 6. BHAGMANI SAH 7. RAM VILAS SAH 8. SHYAM KISHORE SAH 9. SURESH SAH 10. ASHOK SAH 11. MAKHAN SAH 12. SHYAM NARAIN SAH …PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioners :Mr.Arun & :Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K For the State :Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- 02. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel fro the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.12.2008, passed in Cr. Appeal No.15 of 2008 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, and Supaul, whereby their appeal has been dismissed with modification in sentence. It appears that petitioners were tried for offence(s) punishable under sections 379 and 323 IPC. At the trial six (06) prosecution witnesses were examined. The I. O. and the doctor were not examined. Learned trial court found the oral testimony of witnesses trustworthy and convicted the petitioners under sections 379 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one and half years and S.I. for six months respectively. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction, petitioners 2 preferred the appeal as mentioned above. Learned appellate court re-scanned the evidence and found that findings of guilt re corded by learned trial court was/were based on correct appraisal of evidence on record. Accordingly while upholding the findings, learned appellate court modified the sentence and petitioners were directed to be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and each of them was afflicted with fine of Rs.1000/- payable to the informant. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that in view of materials on record, the quantum of fine imposed upon them is/are excessive. It is highlighted that the doctor was not examined to prove the nature of injury sustained by the informant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supports the judgment and order under revision. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and/or patently illegal justifying interference with the same. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in his submission that the doctor was not examined in the case who could have said about the nature of injury sustained by the informant at the hands of the accuseds during the occurrence. It further appears that petitioner have been fighting litigation since 2004. It also appears that both prosecution side and petitioners 3 hail from the same village. Having regard to these aspects of the matter, this Court while upholding the sentence(s) recorded by learned lower appellate court, reduces the fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.500/-. Other terms and conditions of sentence(s) shall remain untouched/unaltered. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )