Patna High CourtCR. REV./748/2016disposed

Jay Prakash Yadav And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-04-07Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.748 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- JAMUI ===========================================================

1. Jay Prakash Yadav, Son of Basudeo Yadav,

2. Devnarayan Yadav, Son of Ram Sahaya Yadav,

3. Basudeo Yadav, Son of Ram Sahaya Yadav All are resident of Village-Alkajara, Police Station Jhajha, DistrictJamui. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sitaram Yadav, Son of Ayodhya Yadav, resident of VillageAlkajara, Police Station Jhajha, District- Jamui. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha Mr. Pramod Kumar For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 07-04-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Jamui, by the judgment and order, dated 09.05.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2013, has affirmed the judgment of conviction of the petitioners of offences punishable under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and their sentence to imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 06 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and one month for the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2016 dt.07-04-2017 2/2 offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The present criminal revision application has been filed against the said judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate court.

4. There being concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below, holding the petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, as noted above, I am not inclined to interfere with such findings in criminal revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence, which is not permissible.

5. However, considering the genesis of occurrence as has emerged from the materials on record, in my view, interest of justice will be subserved if the sentence is modified to the period of custody which the petitioners have already undergone in course of investigation or trial, arising out of concerned G.R. Case No. 916 of 1991 (Trial No. 730 of 2003)

6. This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13.04.2017 Transmission Date 13.04.2017