Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1564 (PAT)

Ram Balak Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2011-07-28

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2011
JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur passed in Cr. Appeal No.116/97 by which judgment and order dated 10.09.1997 passed in C.R.No.366/95/370/97 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. The facts for the purpose of disposal of the case is that the complainant opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case alleging therein that both the petitioners abused and assaulted the complainant and also torn away his Dhoti and damaging his vegetable crops worth Rs.150/- and Rs.100/- respectively. On the alarm being raised, witnesses came there on the spot and show the occurrence. After inquiry, cognizance was taken under Sections 447, 427 and 323 of the I.P.C. After trial, the petitioners were held guilty vide order dated 10.09.1997 and were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months each under Section323 of the I.P.C. and 6 months each under Section 427 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences will run concurrently. Against this order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.116/97. In the appeal also, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners have been upheld by the learned Appellate Court and thereafter, this application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have convicted and sentenced for the occurrence took place on 25.07.1995. More than 16 years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. Both the petitioners have also been in custody. The petitioner no.1 has already gone in custody for two months and eleven days and petitioner no.2 has been in custody about 23 days. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent and the petitioners should have been given the benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I find that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent. Both of them have remained in custody for some time as stated above. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I find that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent. Both of them have remained in custody for some time as stated above. The petitioners have been suffering from mental agony for about 16 years. The petitioners deserve leniency in the sentence. There is necessity of modification in the sentence of the petitioners. In my opinion, for the ends of justice, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 3. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this application is dismissed.