IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1237 of 2011
Jaj Yadav S/O Late Girja Yadav R/O Village-Bhathauli, P.S.-
Sandesh, Distt.-Bhojpur.
..............Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.........Opposite Party
-----------
3. 17.10.2011 I.A. No.2115 of 2011 has been filed for condonation
of delay in filing this revision application.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody in
Sandesh P.S. Case No.92/09 and the judgment in Cr.
Appeal No.61/2006 was delivered on 23.02.2010 when he
was in custody and as such he could not get any
information about the judgment and the order passed in the
Criminal Appeal No.61/2006. He was released from
custody on 12.10.2010. He was arrested on 22.04.2011
and since then he is in custody and time has also elapsed
as he was in custody and thereafter he has managed to file
this revision application.
It appears that sufficient explanations have been
given for condoning the delay in filing this revision
application. The delay is condoned.
2
I.A.No.2115/2011 stands allowed.
The accused petitioner has preferred this revision
application against the judgment and order dated
23.02.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C., Ara at Bhojpur in Cr. Appeal No.61/2006
by which the judgment and order dated 25.05.2006 passed
by the learned trial court has been confirmed and the
appeal has been rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this application can be disposed of at the time of
admission itself. The learned counsel for the State has got
no objection.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.01.1995
the informant was feeding the cattle, the accused including
the petitioner armed with various weapons came there and
assaulted him. On Hulla, Ram Chhapit Yadav came there,
he was also assaulted. At the time of escaping Jai Yadav
(petitioner) took the gold chain of the informant. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
accused. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, all the
accused including the petitioner were held guilty and were
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
3
imprisonment for three years under Section 325 of the
I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.2000/-each and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two
months, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/-each
under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and
all the sentences to run concurrently vide judgment and
order dated 25.05.2006 passed in G.R. No.50/95, Trial
No.1432/06. Convicts including the petitioner preferred
Cr. Appeal No.61/2006 against the aforesaid judgment and
order. After hearing both the parties, appeal has been
dismissed confirming the judgment and order passed by
the learned trial court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the occurrence has taken place on 9.01.1995. More than 16
years have passed. The petitioner has been suffering from
mental agony. He has also been in custody for about seven
months. There is land dispute between both the parties.
The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
The learned counsel for the State could not
4
controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner while opposing the prayer.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it
appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is correct. The occurrence has taken place on
9.01.1995. More than 16 years have passed. The petitioner
has been suffering from mental agony. He has also been in
custody for about 7 months.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the
sentence requires modification. The sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in
custody and a fine of Rs.3000/-. The petitioner will deposit
the fine in the court below and file receipt thereof before
the learned trial court. In that case, the petitioner will be
released from custody, if not required in any other case. In
case the fine is realized, it will be given to the informant,
who is the main victim of the occurrence.
With this modification in the sentence, this
revision application is dismissed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)