Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1120 (PAT)

Sanjay Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-08-14

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2012
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present revision application is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 27.06.2002 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999 by which the judgment and order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1997/ 2 of 1997, has been upheld. 3. The petitioner along with others was charged under Sections 307/149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted him under the said sections and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court has affirmed the said conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he fired but the same did not cause any injury rather it just brushed by the cheek one of the victims causing gun powder burns. Learned counsel submits that there is specific allegation of firing which has hit the victim with regard to other co-accused and the order giver is also someone else and not the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that under the circumstances and in view of the materials and evidence placed before the courts below, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. It is thus submitted that the order of conviction as well as sentence is erroneous. This Court has gone through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records and is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. 4. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties.