IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1464 of 2009 RAM BALLAM MAHTO @ RAM BALAM MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 4.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VI, Sitamarhi in Cr.Appeal No. 64/93, by which he has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.8.1993 passed in G.R.no. 1479/90/T.R.No. 573/93 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi by which petitioner was convicted under sections 379 and 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 379 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 325 IPC with a direction to serve out sentences concurrently. The allegation against the petitioner, in brief, is that on 17.11.1990 at 8.00 AM petitioner along with others entered the Angan of the informant, armed with Lathi and Danda blaming her as witch, started to assault by means of fist, slap and legs. On alarm her Fufuaut mother-in-law Tetari Devi came there to save her who was assaulted by this petitioner fracturing his right hand wrist. Witnesses arrived there, thereafter it is alleged that this petitioner snatched Hansuli from the neck of the informant. According to learned counsel, land dispute was prevailing in between the parties and there was litigation in Chakbandi Court. There could be some altercation but there was no theft of Hansuli 2 nor the informant was blamed as Dyne or witch. Only to blame such serious allegation was leveled. Injuries are manufactured one. Further according to him there are several infirmities in conclusion of conviction also but he prefers to press the sentence. His submission is that the petitioner remained in custody since 22.8.2009 till today while he has been sentenced six months R.I. under section 379 IPC and one year under section 325 IPC. The period of sentence undergone by petitioner if can be observed sufficient that can only compensate the conviction in a false case. Discussed suggested circumstance, in my view, also justifies to minimize the sentence to the period undergone. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed on the point of sentence that is modified and minimized to the period undergone for both the offences as both were to run concurrently. The conviction of petitioner is maintained and the judgment and order of the court below is confirmed for the rest. Petitioner shall be released from custody in the aforesaid case, if not wanted in other case. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)