IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1754 of 2010 JAI PRAKASH YADAV SON OF KAILASH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KOHWARIYA, P.S. SIKANDARA, DISTRICT JAMUI ….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LEKHICHAND YADAV, SON OF NANKU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KODHARIYA, P.S. SIKANDARA, DISTRICT JAMUI. …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :M/s Sushmita Mishra :Raj kumar Singh No.1 :Surya Narayan Das :Pramod kumar For o.p.no. 2 Mr. Aditya Nand Rajay ----------- 4. 01.04.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.07.2010, passed by learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamui on Cr. Appeal No. 193/03, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.08.2003, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Trial No. 270/03 has been affirmed by dismissing the appeal. In respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 03.12.1993, the petitioner was put on trial for the charge(s) punishable under sections 147,148,341,323 and 324 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the informant (P.W.3) while returning home after attending the court proceeding, stayed at village Bhotcha/Balda. Next date i.e. on 04.12.1993 at about 5 A.M. he proceeded towards his village and as soon as he reached near Atokri Bhawan, five accused persons, armed with lathi(s) and 2 iron rod(s) surrounded him and accused Saryug Yadav is said to have assaulted him with Khanti which hit his left leg. Thereafter the accused-petitioner Jai Prakash Yadav is said to have committed theft of his wrist watch and cash carried in his pocket. The accused persons thereafter took to their heels. The petitioner along with other accused persons were tried and by judgment and order dated 21.08.2003, the trial court found the charge(s) proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly the petitioner was held guilty for having committed offence(s) punishable under sections 147,323 and 341. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, R.I. for four months and R.I. for one month respectively. Aggrieved over the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner along with co-convicts preferred appeal which was dismissed without any modification. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that the parties are co-villagers and good and cordial relation have since been resumed between them. An application seeking permission to compound the offence was also filed in the court on 20.12.2010 (Annexure-A to supplementary affidavit). Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to trial court judgment further submits that the petitioner herein has been found to be first convict. He was found 37 years of age at the time of recording conviction. He had to face the ordeal of trial for about ten years which is a shade of punishment. The parties have already resolved their disputes inasmuch as the 3 informant has already filed an application in the trial court seeking permission to compound the offence(s). It is thus submitted that in the light of these facts appearing from records, the petitioner deserves a lenient sentence, particularly when there is no allegation of assault attributed to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has surrendered on 01.12.2010 and since then he is in custody. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which do not require interference. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and after perusal of the two judgments including the subsequent developments which have been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit, this court is satisfied that the sentence passed under sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC requires to be reduced and is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with modification(s) in sentence. Let this order be faxed at the cost of the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )