IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1478 of 2010 BAMBAM YADAV S/O LAKHAN YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY For the Petitioner : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 07.10.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner was tried for the charges framed under Sections 379,504,323,341 and 325 of the Penal Code for an occurrence that had taken place on 26.09.2002. At the trial in all 07 prosecution witnesses were examined to bring home the prosecution case. PW 4 seems to have not supported the prosecution case and accordingly he was declared hostile. Learned trial Court found the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 reliable and the prosecution case was also found substantiated by the evidence of the Doctor (PW7). On a consideration of the entire materials on record, the petitioner was held guilty under Sections 323,341 and 325 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months with fine, S.I. for 01months with fine, and S.I. for 02 years with fine respectively. All the sentences had the default clause(s). Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, petitioner filed appeal being Cr. Appeal no.19 of 2010/Tr. No.02 of 2010. Learned lower appellate court (Additional District & Sessions Judge III, Jamui) rescanned the evidence and 2 came to the conclusion that the charge(s) framed under Section 323 and 341 of the Penal Code were not proved and accordingly petitioner was acquitted of those charges. Learned lower appellate Court, however, found the evidence on record adequate enough to sustain the conviction recorded under Section 325 of the Penal code. Accordingly the appeal was partly allowed. Conviction under Section 325 of the Penal Code was maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the prosecution case it would appear that the parties are related to each other. The occurrence had taken place on 26.09.2002 whereas the trial Court passed the judgment and order of conviction on 18.05.2010. The petitioner has to undergo the ordeal/rigors of trial for about 08 years. It is next submitted that learned trial Court has found the petitioner to be impoverished and first offender. It is also submitted that part of the prosecution case has already been disbelieved by the courts below. It is thus contended that based on the facts appearing from the record petitioner deserves lesser sentence. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. 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 as such they do not merit any interference. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Petitioner definitely had to undergo the ordeal of trial for 08 years and thereby to face several excruciating circumstances. Fighting a criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which 3 needs to be kept in focus while imposing sentence for the proven charge(s). It is also seen from the record that both the parties are agnates and living in the same village. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from the record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub serve the end of justice. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction recorded under Section 325 of the Penal Code against the petitioner the sentence awarded on him is reduced to S.I. for 01 year. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence(s) shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)