IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1177 of 2010 SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD YADAV SON OF JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE- NAWADA, P.S.- SULTANGUNJ, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- 5 11.10.2010 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. Petitioner was tried for a offence punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and rigorous imprisonment for 06 months respectively by order dated 22.4.2000 passed in Tr. No. 657/2000. At the trial, 06 witnesses were examined. Learned Trial Court appraised the evidence and found that the testimony of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 consistently supported the case and the implication of the petitioner in the said occurrence in which one person lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He was found driving a truck which ran over the deceased. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal no. 34 of 2000. Learned appellate court reappraised the evidence on record and found that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court did not merit any interference. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 31.1.1996. He had to fight litigation for about close to 05 years. Thereafter his appeal remained pending for more than 08 years. At the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 42 years. Learned Trial Court has found that this was the first incident in which he was facing any criminal charge. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is/was bread earner of the family. He has sufficiently been punished in fighting the criminal litigation for a long time which needs to be taken into consideration while inflicting punishment/sentence on him. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the two impugned orders. It is contended that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and as such they did not merit interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Petitioner was made to fight trial close to 04 years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time definitely tells upon the mental and economical condition of the litigant. It is further seen that he was engaged in a profession which provided livelihood to the family. There is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts appearing from record, I find substance in the submissions of Learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, for the proven charge(s), needs lesser quantum of sentence. 3 Consequently, while upholding the conviction recorded under Sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years awarded under Section 304A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )