Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 386 (PAT)

Bhola Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-03-02

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2012
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah. J. - Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners when the case is called out. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. Even yesterday when the case was taken up, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioners though learned A.P.P. for the State was present. 3. The case was earlier admitted for hearing and the lower Court records called for. The same have since been received and are on record. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has assisted this Court in the matter in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. This revision application is directed against the Appellate Judgment and order passed in Cr. Appeal No. 91/97 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Madhubani on 17.08.2002 by which the Judgment and order of Conviction and Sentence passed in G.R. No. 620 of 1992. Tr. No. 69 of 1997 by the Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Madhubani dated 28.11.1997 has been upheld. 6. The petitioners were accused in Khajauli P.S. Case No. 59/1992 registered under Sections 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon trial the petitioners were convicted under the said sections and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court has upheld the conviction as well as the sentence by the Judgment dated 17.08.2002 which is impugned herein. 7. Learned A.P.P. has assisted this Court on the basis of materials available in the lower Court records including the statement of witnesses. This Court has also gone through the trial Court Judgment as well as the appellate Court Judgment. 8. Upon due consideration, this Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court which has been upheld by the appellate Court. However, considering the fact that the incident is more than 20 years old and the petitioners have also been in custody for some period and only allegation is that they set fire in a bundle of hay, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period which has already been undergone in custody by them. 9. Accordingly, this revision application is disposed off without interfering with the order of conviction. Only the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. The petitioners who are on bail are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties. 9. Accordingly, this revision application is disposed off without interfering with the order of conviction. Only the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. The petitioners who are on bail are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties. The bailors are also discharged from their bonds. Revision disposed of.