IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1698 of 2009
KRISHANA PRASAD S/O- LATE DWARIKA PRASAD, R/O- VILLAGE
MARCHAHIA TOLA, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- CHAPRA.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
13 10.08.2010 Heard both sides.
Rule confined to question of sentence.
Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State.
Lower Court’s records have already been received.
With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at
the admission stage itself.
In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and the order this Court proposes to pass, there is no
need to set out the facts leading to the present case in extenso.
In respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 1.11.1996,
the petitioner was proceeded against and tried by the learned
Trial Court vide Tr. No. 150 of 2008 for an offence punishable
under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. He was allegedly found in
company of a person from whom certain railway property worth
Rs. 115/- was/were recovered.
At the trial, four P.Ws were examined. On
consideration of the materials brought on record, learned Trial
Court found and held him guilty under the aforesaid section and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred
appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 22 of 2008. The appellate court
2
rescanned the evidence on record and found that the judgment
and order of conviction was passed on legal appraisal of the
prosecution evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed
without any relief to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial consumed more than 12 years. All these years, he was made
to undergo rigours of trial. According to him, this is a shade of
punishment which has to be borne in mind while inflicting
sentence for the charges which have been proved at the trial.
Referring to the order of the trial court, it is submitted that the
petitioner has not been found to be previously convicted. Learned
counsel further highlights that the petitioner, at the time of
conviction, was found aged about 35 years. It is thus contended
that the petitioner, for the charges proved at the trial, deserves a
lesser punishment.
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that
there is no illegality in the two orders passed by the learned two
courts below and as such they do not merit interference.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody for about 10 months. Learned A.P.P., on
perusal of the records concedes to the aforesaid submission.
Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and after going through the materials placed
on record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment in the
facts and circumstances of the case shall meet the ends of
3
justice. The petitioner herein is thus sentenced to the period
already undergone by him. The petitioner shall be released forth
with if not required in any other case.
With this modification in sentence only, the application
is dismissed.
Let the office transmit the present order and the lower
Court’s records to the court below with promptitude.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj