IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.944 of 2011
1. Pragash Sah
2. Kailash Sah
Both are sons of Late Mishri Sah, resident of
village- Purandaha Rajwara, P.S.- Sonbarsa,
District Sitamarhi.
... Petitioners.
Versus
The State Of Bihar .... Opposite Party.
------
For the Petitioners :Mr. Surya Narayan Sinha,
Sr. Adv
:Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
:Mr. Shikha Rai, Adv.
For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP
——
3. 15.09.2011 The accused-petitioners have preferred this
revision application against the judgment and order dated
31.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
FTC-I, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2009 by which the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
7.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Sitamarhi in G. R. No. 1090 of 2002 , Trial No. 35 of
2009 convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo
imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 I.P.C, six
months under Section 323 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for
three years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 I.P.C.
and in default of payment of fine to undergo further
imprisonment for nine months and imprisonment for one
year under Section 504 I.P.C., all the sentences to run
2
concurrently, has been confirmed and the appeal has been
dismissed.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.8.2002
at about 7 p.m. the informant, Manoj Mishra was returning
after seeing his field and when he reached on luchka
situated west of his village Rajbara on pitch road, he was
caught hold and abused by the accused petitioners and they
started to assault him indiscriminately with danda. Due to
assault the informant fell down and raised alarm, villagers
reached there and saved him. During assault, his wrist watch
and ring fell down which were taken by the accused
Pragash Sah. The cause of occurrence is demand of money
which was demanded by the informant from the accused
petitioners.
On the basis of fard beyan of the informant,
Sonbarsa P. S. Case No. 60 of 2002 was instituted. After
investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to the court of session.
After trial, the accused petitioners were convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid, against which the petitioners filed
Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2009, which has been dismissed
confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by
3
the learned trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the case is of the year 2002 and the petitioners have
been suffering from mental agony, as such, this case may be
disposed of at this stage itself. Lower court records have
already been received.
Learned counsel for the State has got no objection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial Court has been confirmed by the learned
appellate Court and there is no material on record to show
that the accused – petitioners have any criminal antecedent.
The occurrence is of dated 15.8.2002, more than nine years
have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from
mental agony. They have also remained in custody for some
time. It is a fit case in which the sentence should be
modified.
Learned counsel for the State could not controvert
the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties
and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners
have no criminal antecedent. They have also remained in
4
custody for sometime. The occurrence has taken place in the
year 2002 and more than nine years have passed and the
petitioners have been suffering from mental agony.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my
opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence should be
modified and accordingly the sentence of the petitioners is
reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a
fine of Rs.2000/- each. The petitioners are directed to pay a
sum of Rs.2000/- each in the learned trial Court which will
be payable to the informant, Manoj Mishra who is the
victim in this case and in default of payment of fine, they
will serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned trial
Court. The petitioners are directed to be released on
furnishing the receipt showing the deposit of Rs.2000/- each
in the learned trial Court and if they are not warranted in
any other case.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence,
this revision application is dismissed.
Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
