BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the Trial Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants did not argue the appeal on merits and his only contention is that the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 148 Indian Penal Code to one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and they are in jail since the date of the judgment i.e. 16th January, 2002, therefore, they already served out a sentence of imprisonment for about 3 years and 10 months. He further contended that they also remained in the jail for some time during the investigation/ trial of the case, therefore, they already remained in jail for about 4 years. His prayer is, therefore, limited to the extent that sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment, which is maximum sentence may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer in view of the fact that the appeal has not been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants on merits.