IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.523 of 2011 SOBIN RAI @ SOBHAN RAI SON OF LATE MEGHU RAI …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Rajeeva Roy For the State :Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 03. 17.05.2011 Matter requires consideration on the question of sentence only. Hence Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage. Petitioner herein is the father-in-law of the complainant. He along with others was put on trial vide Tr.No.63/08. On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court found and held him guilty under sections 498A and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and R.I. for six months respectively. He was also held guilty under section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, petitioner preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No.61/08. On a re- consideration of the materials on record, learned appellate court dismissed the appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had to undergo the rigours of trial for about eight years when ultimately the trial court held him guilty. Referring to trial 2 court judgment, it is submitted that at the time of recording conviction he was assessed 70 years old. Learned counsel submits that admittedly there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that petitioner deserves a lenient quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which cannot be said t be perverse and/order patently illegal. On a consideration of materials available on record, this Court finds substance in the submissions of the petitioner that he had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial for close to eight years. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction, he was assessed seventy years of age. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as during this period the litigant had to undergo several excruciating circumstances having telling effects on the mental and economical condition. It also appears from trial court judgment that petitioner was found the first convict. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances appearing from records, this Court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s), in the facts and circumstances of the case, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial court and upheld by lower appellate court, the sentence recorded under section 498A and 323 IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act is/are reduced to R.I. for four months under each 3 count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence(s), if any, shall remain untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )