Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1124 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-08-14

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2012
JUDGMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present revision application is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 25.09.2002 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barh in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2001 by which the judgment and order dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh in G.R. No. 613 of 1996, Trial No. 134 of 2001 convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has been upheld. 3. The trial court had convicted the petitioner no. 1 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and had further convicted all the four petitioners under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and two months each respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate court upheld the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at least the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inasmuch as the petitioners had no past history of any conviction. It is submitted that the trial court has erroneously not given the benefit on the ground that act committed by them was of a serious nature and the blow was on the head. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that the courts have not applied the judicial mind inasmuch as the maximum imprisonment envisaged under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is one month simple imprisonment whereas in the present case, the petitioners have been awarded two months rigorous imprisonment which cannot be sustained. 5. Without going into the details of the merits at this stage, upon going through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records, this Court 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. 6. 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. 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. 6. 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. Petitioners are discharged of the liabilities of their bonds and sureties. Revision disposed of.