IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.367 of 2010 1. GANOURI YADAV S/o late Prabhu Yadav 2. Doman Yadav S/o Khoshal Yadav 3. Sudhir Yadav, S/o late Ragho Yadav’ 4. Arjun Yadav, S/o late Prabhu Yadav Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 11.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The revision application is filed against the Judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.II), Jamui in Cr. Appeal No. 01 of 1997 and the order dated 19.07.1997 passed by the C.J.M., Jamui in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 19 of 1982, G.R. Case No. 129 of 1982. Sentence is only pressed referring parties coming from same village and dispute arose on trivial matter which was a simple case of quarrel in which assault is alleged. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 have not been alleged for using any dangerous weapon while blow of petitioner no.3 by means of Bhala was scalp deep and petitioner no.4 by means of sword which cut upper lip only without repetition even not coming within the definition of grievous hurt. In the case for the allegation of theft, it is said that paddy was taken away but witnesses are not constant on the point of quantum of the paddy. All the petitioners are in 2 custody since 09.03.2010 that may be observed sufficient towards punishment. In the discussed circumstances, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners but for the petitioners no. 1 and 2 only. Petitioners no. 3 and 4 have used Bhala and Sword caused injuries also, its gravity about their being grievous is doubted and incident is of the year 1982. If that is also taken into consideration, they are entitled for some liberal view Accordingly, the revision application is partly allowed on the point of sentence. That is minimized and modified to the period undergone and the above named petitioners no. 1 and 2 are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far as petitioners no. 3 and 4 are concerned, they have been convicted under sections 326/148 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for Six months for the offence under Sections 148 and 379 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the period of sentence passed under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is minimized for six months and for rest of the offences, the period of sentence is also minimized for one month to run 3 concurrently. Above named petitioners no. 3 and 4 are directed to be released after completion of the period of six months, if not wanted in any other case. Rest of the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. II, Jamui in Cr. Appeal No. 01 of 2007 and the Order dated 19.07.1997 passed by the C.J.M., Jamui in connection with G.R. No. 129 of 1982, Jamui P.S. Case No. 19 of 1982 are hereby affirmed. Let the order be communicated to the trial court through F.A.X. at the cost of the petitioners. Shail ( Mandhata Singh, J.)