Shashi Bhushan Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.1014 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Braj Bhushan Singh, son of Late Bhagya Narayan Singh
2. Ravi Bhushan Singh, son of Late Bhagya Narayan Singh
3. Krit Bhushan Singh, son of Late Bhagya Narayan Singh All resident of village Dopra Sahwajpur, Police Station Riga, District Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nirmala Devi, wife of Shashi Shekhar Singh, resident of village Dopra Sahwajpur, Police Station Riga, District Sitamarhi .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Criminal Revision No.1015 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SITAMARHI ======================================================
1. Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of Late Ram Anek Singh'
2. Rajeev Kumar, son of Shashi Bhushan Singh Both resident of village Dopra Sahwajpur, Police Station Riga, District Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nirmala Devi, wife of Shashi Shekhar Singh, resident of village Dopra Sahwajpur, Police Station Riga, District Sitamarhi .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
(In both cases) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Roy(App) For the Pvt. O.P. : Mr. S. K. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners, without going into the correctness of the judgment of conviction of the petitioners by the learned Trial Court, which has,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1014 of 2014 (3) dt.27-02-2017 2/2 subsequently, been affirmed by the impugned judgment and order, dated 22.08.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, term of sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner.
The petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 belong to the same family. The petitioners have been convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and they, finally, stand sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year. The conviction is based on a complaint case filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 in the year 2007. Considering the facts and circumstances, there being concurrent finding of fact, leading to the conviction of the petitioners, without interfering such findings, these applications are disposed of by modifying the impugned order of sentence to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners.
These applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Prabhakar Anand/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) U √ T √