Patna High CourtCR. REV./690/2003dismissed

Chandradip Singh @ Banasur And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-06-26Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No. 690 of 2003 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- AURANGABAD ========================================================

1. Chandradip Singh @ Banasur, Son of Late Banshi Singh.

2. Bindhyachal Singh, Son of Sri Shambhu Singh.

3. Gora Singh, Son of Sri Shambhu Singh.

4. Bigan Singh, Son of Late Ram Das Singh.

5. Satyendra Singh, Son of Late Moti Singh.

6. Nand Lal Singh @ Nandu Singh, Son of Late Jageshwar Singh. All Petitioners are resident of Village-Tengra, P.S.-Barun, DistrictAurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Laxman Prasad, Son of Jagmal Sao.

3. Sunil Kumar, Son of Laxman Prasad. Resident of both the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 at Tengara Line Hotel, P.S.-Barun, District-Aurangabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Shankar, Adv. Mr. Mukul Jee, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh 2, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Adv. Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Adv.

======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-06-2015 The Petitioners seek revision of the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1994/25 of 2002, by which he has affirmed the judgment dated 27.06.1994 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in G.R. No. 1630 of 1988 (Tr. No. 395 of 1994), by which he has convicted the Petitioners under Sections and IPC

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.690 of 2003 dt.26-06-2015 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year and six months respectively.

Having gone through the impugned 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 Petitioners.

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision application stands dismissed.

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