ANTU SINGH @ ABHAY SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR

5. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Antu Singh @ Abhay Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 607/2007(S.J.) addressed this Court on the question of sentence. Mr. Tilak Sao, learned Counsel for the appellant Pappu Lala @ Vijendra Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 641/2007(S.J.) also adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Ashutosh Kumar.

6. In view of the short issue raised by the learned counsels for the appellants, this Court refrains from referring to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and documents brought in support thereof in order to reappraise them.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged way back on 19.3.2005. The appellants were arrested and remanded to jail custody w.e.f.

21.3.2005. The judgment itself indicates that both appellants were of 20-25 years old when the occurrence was committed by them. Referring to paragraph no. 16 of the judgment, it has been argued that admittedly the appellants are the first offenders. It has further been pointed out with reference to the records that appellant Antu Singh @ Abhay Singh remained in custody throughout since 21.3.2005 i.e. for nearly 4 (four) years by now. So far appellant Pappu Lala @ Vijendra Singh is concerned, learned counsel appearing on his behalf submits that in course of investigation and trial, this appellant - 6 - had remained in custody for nearly 10 months and after the impugned judgment, he remained in custody for more than 3 months and thereafter was granted the privilege of bail. In this way, it has been submitted that this appellant has also remained in custody for nearly 13 months and 4 days till date.

8. Mr. Prasad, counsel for the State, on perusal of the Lower Courts records does not dispute this statement with regard to the actual incarceration undergone by the present two appellants. Both the counsels for the appellants in one voice submitted that admittedly both the appellants had to undergo mental distress throughout these years. Having highlighted the salient features, It has been submitted that a lenient view be taken in the matter so far as imposition of sentence(s) is concerned.

9. Having heard both the parties, this Court is of the view that the following sentence shall meet the ends of justice. (i) Appellant Antu Singh @ Abhay Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 607/2007(S.J.)) is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He is also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof he shall have undergo further period of 3 months rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Appellant Pappu Lala @ Vijendra Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 641/2007(S.J.)) - 7 - sentenced period already undergone by him. He is imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof, he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

10. It has been pointed out that the appellant Antu Singh @ Abhay Singh is presently in custody. In the event of payment of fine so imposed upon him, he is directed to be released forth with from jail custody, if not required in any other case. So far as appellant Pappu Lala @ Vijendra Singh (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 641/2007) is concerned, it has been pointed out that he is on bail. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that in the event of payment of fine so imposed upon him within 8 (eight weeks) from today, he shall be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. In the event of non payment of fine within the time indicated hereinabove, the Trial Court shall take all coercive steps to ensure his arrest and to make him serve the sentence imposed in default of non payment of fine treating the bail bonds as cancelled.

11. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above. ( Kishore K. Mandal, J ) Patna High Court Dated 24th February, 2009, NAFR/ pkj