IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1237 of 2011 Jaj Yadav S/O Late Girja Yadav R/O Village-Bhathauli, P.S.- Sandesh, Distt.-Bhojpur. …………..Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ………Opposite Party ----------- 3. 17.10.2011 I.A. No.2115 of 2011 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing this revision application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody in Sandesh P.S. Case No.92/09 and the judgment in Cr. Appeal No.61/2006 was delivered on 23.02.2010 when he was in custody and as such he could not get any information about the judgment and the order passed in the Criminal Appeal No.61/2006. He was released from custody on 12.10.2010. He was arrested on 22.04.2011 and since then he is in custody and time has also elapsed as he was in custody and thereafter he has managed to file this revision application. It appears that sufficient explanations have been given for condoning the delay in filing this revision application. The delay is condoned. 2 I.A.No.2115/2011 stands allowed. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Ara at Bhojpur in Cr. Appeal No.61/2006 by which the judgment and order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the learned trial court has been confirmed and the appeal has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this application can be disposed of at the time of admission itself. The learned counsel for the State has got no objection. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.01.1995 the informant was feeding the cattle, the accused including the petitioner armed with various weapons came there and assaulted him. On Hulla, Ram Chhapit Yadav came there, he was also assaulted. At the time of escaping Jai Yadav (petitioner) took the gold chain of the informant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, all the accused including the petitioner were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous 3 imprisonment for three years under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.2000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/-each under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and all the sentences to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2006 passed in G.R. No.50/95, Trial No.1432/06. Convicts including the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.61/2006 against the aforesaid judgment and order. After hearing both the parties, appeal has been dismissed confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence has taken place on 9.01.1995. More than 16 years have passed. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also been in custody for about seven months. There is land dispute between both the parties. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the State could not 4 controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The occurrence has taken place on 9.01.1995. More than 16 years have passed. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also been in custody for about 7 months. Considering the facts and circumstances, the sentence requires modification. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.3000/-. The petitioner will deposit the fine in the court below and file receipt thereof before the learned trial court. In that case, the petitioner will be released from custody, if not required in any other case. In case the fine is realized, it will be given to the informant, who is the main victim of the occurrence. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)