Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 625 (PAT)

Babulal Sahni v. State Of Bihar

1999-07-22

S.K.KATRIAR

body1999
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated .2.12.1993, passed by Shri Sheo Shankar Prasad, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari in criminal appeal No. 24/14 of 1989/91, whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the present four petitioners and confirmed the judgment, dated 18.2.1989, passed by Shri H.N. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari in G.R. Case No. 2381/85 Trial No. 123/88. Petitioner No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 324 and 448, IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and four months, with respect to the said sections respectively. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under Sections 323 and 448, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and four months, with respect to the said sections respectively. Both the sentences with respect to the four petitioners shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.11.1985 at about 5 p.m., the first informant, Lal Babu Sahni, while he was in his field, had rushed to his house on hearing the cries of his wife, and saw that the accused-petitioners were assaulting his wife, Lal Muni Devi. Petition No. 1 (Babu Lal Sahni) was armed with pharsa and others were armed with lathi. When the informant protested, petitioner No. 1 gave pharsa blow on the head of the informant and other accused-persons assaulted him with lathis. Petitioner No. 1 gave pharsa blow on the left leg of the wife of the informant and other accused-persons assaulted her with lathis. When Ramanand Choudhary came to their rescue, the accused-persons also assaulted him. Petitioner No. 4 (Ramnath Sahni) set his hut on fire. The informant, his wife and his brother came to Harsidhi Hospital, for their treatment. 3. On the basis of the statement of the informant, a case was registered with Harsidhi P.S. under Sections 323, 324,448 and 436/34, IPC against the accused persons on 27.11.1985. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 324 and 448, IPC against the accused-persons. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the Magistrate for disposal. The defence version was complete denial of the allegations, and they have been falsely implicated due to land dispute. After completing the trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgment date,d 18.2.1989, convicted the petitioners herein and sentenced them in the aforesaid manner. 4. The defence version was complete denial of the allegations, and they have been falsely implicated due to land dispute. After completing the trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgment date,d 18.2.1989, convicted the petitioners herein and sentenced them in the aforesaid manner. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioners herein preferred criminal appeal No. 24/14 of 1989-91, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 2.12.1993, passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari. The appellate Court has by the impugned judgment affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court in entirely, and has upheld the conviction under Sections 323, 324 and 448, IPC and has also affirmed the sentences inflicted on the petitioners. Hence the present revision application. 5. By the order dated 1.3.1994, this Court had admitted this revision application and granted a limited rule to the petitioners confined to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have no criminal antecedents and this is their first offence. According to the findings recorded by the Court below, it was really a marpit between known persons with no wider implications. He further submits that the petitioners have already been in custody for one month and three days. In such circumstances, in his submission, the sentence awarded by the Court of appeal below should be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioners in an orgy of violence had stormed into the house of the informant in the absence of the head of the family and injured three persons. The intention was to kill them, but they escaped death only on account of fortuitous circumstances. He further submits that the petitioners do not deserve the least of sympathy, inter alia, for the reason that they had stormed into the room of the wife of the informant when the latter was not at home, and had assaulted her on her leg with pharsa and lathis, apart from assaulting others. He further submits that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is inadequate. 7. Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment and submits that there is no mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioners. 8. He further submits that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is inadequate. 7. Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment and submits that there is no mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioners. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this revision application has to be dismissed. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the petitioners have committed grave and absolutely unexecusable acts of storming into the room of the informants wife in his absence and delivering pharsa blow on her leg, and also lathi blows on her. This is really a barbaric act and deprives the petitioners of all sympathy and compassion. This revision application is really concluded by findings of fact. The sentence awarded to the petitioners are really on the lighter side in view of the findings recorded by the courts below. In such circumstances, this criminal revision application fails. 9. In the result, this revision application is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 2.12.1993, passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari in criminal appeal No. 24/14 of 1989/91, is hereby upheld. The bail-bonds of the petitioners are hereby cancelled, who are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.