Nazirul Haque vs The State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 8.9.2000 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Cr. Appeal No. 25/96/8/97. The revisionist was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and two years respectively. The appellate court reduced the sentence to one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence u/s 326 I.P.C. The appellate court released the revisionist for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. under the provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner had remained in custody for near about five months and he was aged 35 years at the time of trial court''s judgment and now he is aged about 50 years. So, lenient view may be taken.

However, on perusal of the judgment of the appellate court it transpired that it was at the hands of the petitioner that the informant sustained injuries upon his person caused by sharp cutting substance. Injury no. 1 was incised wound on the scalp and the scalp was cut. The appellate court held that offence u/s 326 I.P.C. is punishable for life imprisonment. I am of the opinion that the offences of the kind alleged in this case did not warrant any leniency from this Court as well. Hence, I do not think that this is a good case for reduction of the sentence any further. The appellate court itself had become lenient and reduced the sentence of two years imprisonment to one year. In the result, this revision is dismissed.