Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 26 (PAT)

Ramdeo Mali v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-10

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application in revision is directed against the order of learned Sesstions Judge, Gaya dated 28.8.96 in Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 1993 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 5.3.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.R. Case No. 1691/1991 & Tr.No.126/1993 convicting the petitioners Ramdeo Mali, Umesh Mali and Vijay Mali for one year R.I. under section 325 I.P.C., four months R.I. under section 323 I.P.C. The petitioner Ramdeo Mali has been further convicted unrder section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.l. for 6 months. 3. The trial court has also convicted all the three petitioners under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 200/-, however, the lower appellate court acquitted all the three petitioners under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Binod Mali who was tried alongwith three petitioners was ordered to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, accordingly his revision was not admitted by this court. 4. The brief fact of the case is that in his fardbeyan the informant Somrati Malin stated that on 27.6.1991 at about 7.00 A.M. she was coming back to her home after plucking flowers from her garden alongwith her daughter-in-law, Dhanmanti Devi in the way all the four accused persons arrived and on the order of petitioner Ramdeo Mali they were assaulted by means of slap and fist and saif. The informant had bleeding injury. Her daughter-in-law was also assaulted by means of Lathi. On the basis of fardbeyan, the case was registered and after cognizance, the trial proceeded in the court below. 5. The defence of the case is total denial of the occurrence and false implication. 6. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of this case. But the court below has come to the finding that the medical evidences corroborate the prosecution witness and to substance the charges lavelled against the petitioners. 7. Vide order dated 17.7.1997, this revision application was admitted on the question of sentence only. The learned petitioners lawyer submitted that the petitioners surrendered on 2.5.1997 and by the Hon ble court vide its order dated 17.7.1997 they were released on bail after some days of this order. As such they have remained in custody for about 60 days. The offence is of the year 1991. The learned petitioners lawyer submitted that the petitioners surrendered on 2.5.1997 and by the Hon ble court vide its order dated 17.7.1997 they were released on bail after some days of this order. As such they have remained in custody for about 60 days. The offence is of the year 1991. There is no history of previous conviction against any of the petitioners and as such they are first offenders. 8. Heard A.P.P. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and all the petitioners remained in custody for 60 days, the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 9. With this modification in the judgment and order of the court below, this revision is dismissed.