Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 426 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-13

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in G. R. Case No. 753 of 1992 (Tr. No. 216 of 1998) and affirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur in Cr. Appeal No. 14/121 of 1998/99, have preferred this revision application. 2. Petitioners were put on trial for offence under Sections 341, 147 and 323 of the India Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the IPC. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, held them guilty of the said offence and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offence under Sections 147 and 341 of the IPC and six months for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence failed. 3. According to the prosecution, on 10.10.1992, the wife of the informant Lilavati and niece of the informant Sabita Kumari saw petitioner No. 1 Kumar Sah taking bricks from the back side of the informants house to which they protested but the said petitioner did not pay any heed to their protest. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid persons narrated the incident to the informant and when he protected, the informant, his brother and his wife were assaulted by the petitioners by lathi. On the basis of the report given to the Police, Kudra P.S. Case No. 107 of 2002 was registered under Sections 341, 147 and 323 of the IPC. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and the petitioners were ultimately put on trial. Petitioners denied to have committed any offence and their plea was that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. Prosecution, in support of its case, has examined altogether 11 witnesses and on appraisal of their evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the said finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court. 4. Mr. Arvind Nath Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners very fairly submits that in view, of the material on record, petitioners may not legitimately assail their conviction but the ends of justice shall be met in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. He points out that the petitioners are in jail since 9.3.2004. 5. Mr. He points out that the petitioners are in jail since 9.3.2004. 5. Mr. S.C. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the State submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioners cannot be said to be excessive, calling for interference by this Court revision. 6. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Pandey. The occurrence had taken place as back as on 10.10.1992. The petitioners have faced the ordeal of trial and appeal for more than ten years. They have also remained in jail for more than four weeks. In the faets and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. I order accordingly. 7. In the result, the application is dismissed with the modification in the sentence. The sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 8. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned by. fax at the cost of the petitioners.