ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Randhir Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 20.12.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court has been confirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed.

4. The learned trial court vide judgement of conviction dated 14.09.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.09.2011 passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 26 of 2009 / T.R. No. 29 of 2011 had convicted the petitioner under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of further three months.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner :

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that his main argument is confined to the quantum of sentence in the present case. However, in order to advance his arguments on the quantum of sentence, he has also referred to the facts and circumstances of this case as recorded in the impugned judgements. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that although the petitioner and the co-accused namely, Gokul Gope were charged for offences under Sections 307/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but Gokul Gope was acquitted by the learned trial court from all the charges and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code only.

6. The learned Senior counsel further submits that so far as the injury is concerned, the doctor namely, Dr. Shiv Lal Kunkal has been examined as P.W.-7, but the opinion on the nature of injury stood reserved by him. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the victim / informant namely, Munna Kujur was examined as P.W.-4, but his statement was not recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

7. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody from 17.06.2008 to at least till 08.08.2012 when he was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court i.e. for more than four years out of seven years and he has no criminal antecedent, as reflected from the impugned judgement passed by the learned trial court itself. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the First Information Report is of 09.06.2008 and much time has elapsed since then and on the date of conviction on 14.09.2011, the petitioner was aged about 27 years only and on the date of occurrence, he was of a tender age of around 24 years.

8. While concluding his arguments, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner has faced the rigorous of criminal case for a long period, some sympathetic view may be taken by this Court and sentence may be modified and limited to the period already undergone by the petitioner in jail custody.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State :

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the two prosecution witnesses particularly the P.W.-4 – informant/victim and P.W.7- the doctor, have fully support