Mahadeo Sah And ORS v. State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2004 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- MUZAFFARPUR ========================================================

1. Mahadeo Sah, Son of Ramashray Sah, Resident of Village-Turki, P.S.-Minapur, Resident of Village-Turki, P.S.-Minapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur.

2. Sikandar Sahi, Son of Tapeshwar Sahi.

3. Dhrub Sahi @ Dhrubdeo Sahi, Son of Nirsu Shahi.

4. Rajeshwar Sahi @ Rajeshwar Prasad Sahi, Son not known. All of Village Harka Mansahi, P.S.-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

5. Siya Prasad Rai, Son of Kailash Rai.

6. Suresh Rai, Son of Gugal Rai.

7. Batohi Rai, Son of Chulhai Rai. All resident of Village Turki Yadav Toli, P.S.-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

8. Ramchandra Sah, Son of Kuldip Sah.

9. Prasad Sah, Son of Judagi Sah. Resident of Village-Turhatoli, P.S.-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

10.

Sitaram Sah, Son of Mushar Sah. Resident of Village Marhalla, P.S.-Tariyani, District-Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Respondent/s ======================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP.

======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-06-2015 The Petitioners seek revision of the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2003 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1993, by which he has affirmed the judgment dated 25.02.1993 passed by the 5th Assistant Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 141 of 1990/12 of 1990, by which he has convicted the Petitioners under Sections

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.155 of 2004 dt.29-06-2015 324/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years.

Having gone through the judgment of conviction, I do not find any perversity in the same and, hence, decline to interfere in the matter.

However, considering the period of custody and the date of occurrence, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the Petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, the Revision Application stands dismissed.

Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.) U T