IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1610 of 2010 1. SARJU YADAV SON OF DAWARIKA YADAV 2. PARO YADAV SON OF MISHRI YADAV. 3. BALAY YADAV SON OF LATRU YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF KODHWARIYA, P.S.- SIKANDARA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAKKICHAND YADAV SON OF NANKU YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE KODBARIYA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. For the petitioners : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. Rab, APP ----------- 2 10.11.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Three petitioners joined hands in questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.7.2010 passed by learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamui in Cr. Appeal no. 193/2003 whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.8.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in G.R. No. 1390/1993(Tr. No. 270 of 2003) has been considered and dismissed. Learned Trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record found all the petitioners guilty under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for diverse periods. The maximum sentence awarded against petitioner No. 1 is for S.I. for 01 year under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. So far petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the maximum sentence awarded on them is S.I. for 06 months under Section 147 of the Indian Penal 2 Code. At the trial, 04 witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s) against the petitioners. Let it be recorded that the petitioners were also charged under Section 325 IPC besides the aforesaid offences. On a consideration of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court acquitted the accuseds of the charge punishable under Section 325 IPC. However, the evidence on record was found sufficient for convicting them under diverse counts. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred the aforesaid appeal which was considered and dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that independent witness has not been produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges. It is contended that P.Ws 1 and 2 who have been found by the Courts below supporting the prosecution case were relatives of the informant (P.W. 3). It is next submitted that the I.O. of the case has also not been examined in this case. Learned Trial Court as well as learned lower Appellate Court found on an appraisal of the evidence that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 support in entirety the evidence of the informant (P.W. 3). The doctor was also examined in this case as P.W. 4. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have found that the allegations as contained in the F.I.R and projected in course of trial found full support from the evidence of the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two 3 courts below based on appraisal of evidence on record which do not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contends that occurrence had taken place on 4.12.1993. The trial of the petitioner consumed close to 10 years. Ultimately, they were found and held guilty under judgment and order dated 21.8.2003. For all these years, they had been made to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial which is a shade of punishment and relevant consideration while imposing the sentence for the proved charges. It is next contended, with reference to the Trial Court’s judgment, that the petitioner was found aged about 50 years at the time of recording conviction whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were found aged about 35 years and 30 years respectively. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time definitely tells upon economical, mental and physical conditions of the litigants. It has, therefore, been found as a relevant consideration for imposing sentence. This Court, having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from records is satisfied that the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence is reduced. Consequently, the petitioner no. 1 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. So far petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, their sentence awarded under Section 147 IPC is reduced to S.I. for 03 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence as awarded 4 by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )