A court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone by the convict, while upholding the conviction, by taking a holistic view of mitigating factors such as the duration of prosecution and the existence of a land dispute.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2010 and 14.12.2010 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Nawada in S.Tr. No. 148/09/95/09 arising out of Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) with R.I. for one year, under Section 307/34 IPC with R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default of payment of fine he will further go R.I. of six months) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of payment of fine he will further go R.I. for three months).

2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Rambalak Yadav (P.W.-6) is that on 07.07.2008 in the night when he was sleeping at Verandah alongwith his son Indradeo Prasad (P.W. 1) at about 11.30. P.M. he heard a sound of crying to shoot upon which he awakened and saw in the light of lantern that his villagers Dinesh Chaudhary and Bijali Chaudhary were standing armed with pistol with intention to kill him and they opened fire twice out of which one bullet was shot at left side neck and second shot did not hit him. Thereafter, they sought for rescue and on hearing the shouting his wife, Sugiya Devi and other neigbours Sarjug Mahto, Sanjay Mahto, Rambachan Yadav and others came there and they saw the accused persons fleeing in light of torch, thereafter, he was taken to the hospital.

3. After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge-sheet on 31.12.2008 under Sections 447, 324, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant before the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant framed the charges under Sections 324 and 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. They are:-

(i) PW-1 Indradeo Prasad (Son of the Informant) supported the prosecution story and stated that he was sleeping with his father and saw the occurrence

(ii) PW-2 Ram Sugia Devi (Wife of Informant) has supported the prosecution story;

(iii) PW-3 Sanjay Yadav has supported the prosecution story;

(iv) P.W. 4 Ganesh Yadav (Nephew of the informant) has stated that he had not seen the occurrence and he came after hearing sound of firing and found the informant in injured condition

(v) P.W. 5 Sanjay Mahto (Nephew of the informant) had not seen the occurrence and came after hearing sound of firing and found the informant in injured condition;

(vi) P.W. 6 Rambalak Yadav (Informant) was sleeping at his Dalan along with his son (P.W. 1) and saw the accused person who were armed with pistol. Both of them made firing and one of the bullet injured the informant at his neck;

(vii) P.W. 7 Doctor (Narender Sharma) has proved the injury report and

(viii) P.W. 8, Dhananjay Jha, Investigating Officer has supported the case of the prosecution and proved the same true.

6. The defence has also examined four witnesses. They are:-

(i) DW 1 Lakhan Chaudhary has deposed that his son (father of Dinesh Choudhary) was doing job