Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 347 (PAT)

Banarsi Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-18

ANIL KUMAR SINHA

body2001
Judgment ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Both the revision applications were heard together as both arise out of the common judgment passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 1990, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners who were convicted by the trial Court under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The relevant facts, concerning both the revision applications are that on 22.5.1989 the informant along with his son were returning from Bakhtiyarpur and were going to their village home and boarded on a Tumtum. The informant was carrying a D.B.B.L. gun bearing No. 7401723. When the Tumtum reached near the Chandi More at Harnaut Bazar, one of the accused who was boarding on Tumtum snatched away his gun and the three accused who were standing at the More helped him to accomplish his object. After snatching the gun, the accused-persons fled away and when the informant and his son chased them, the accused-persons hurled brick bats causing injuries to the informant and his son. The informant raised alarm but nobody came to his rescue. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant recorded on 22.5.1989 a case under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Harnaut police station against four unknown accused- persons. In course of investigation these petitioners were arrested on suspicion and were put on T.I. Parade and were identified by the informant and his son. 3. The petitioners faced trial and in course of trial the informant and his son fully supported the prosecution story and identified the petitioners. On the basis of the materials available on record, the trial Court found these petitioner guilty for committing the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and the appellate Court, after considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with that, the present revision applications have been filed. 4. Against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and the appellate Court, after considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with that, the present revision applications have been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the gun, in question, could not be recovered by the police nor the informant produced the licence of the gun. It was next contended that although the informant has admitted that he received treatment at the hospital but no doctor has been examined by the prosecution which falsified the case of the prosecution. Both the submissions do not carry any weight in view of the consistent ocular evidence of the informant and his son who are eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence and both of them fully supported the prosecution story and also identified the petitioners in Court without being shaken in their cross-examination. The non-examination of doctor will not render their evidence unworthy of placing credence to specially in view of the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 have made positive statements that they suffered some injuries and due to non-examination of the doctor no prejudice appears to have been caused to the accused-persons, inasmuch, as no circumstance has been shown which may indicate that due to non-examination of the doctor serious prejudice was caused to the defence so as to disbelieve the entire prosecution version. After going through the judgment of the Courts below, I find that there has been concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below and there does not appear any infirmity in their judgments. I, therefore, find no merit in both these revision applications so far the merit of the case is concerned. Accordingly, both the revision applications are dismissed. 5. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner, namely, Nasib Gope of Cr. Revision No. 114/99 has remained in jail for a period of nine months whereas petitioner, namely, Banarasi Yadav of Cr. Revision No. 64/99 has remained in jail for a period of one year ten and half months. It was submitted that it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Revision No. 64/99 has remained in jail for a period of one year ten and half months. It was submitted that it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. In this connection it was also submitted that the allegation of snatching the gun in question, is against accused Banarasi Yadav and Nasib Gope was seen standing at the More and the allegation against him is that he abetted accused Banarasi Yadav in commission of the crime. This factual aspect of the matter was not controverted by the counsel appearing for the State. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail custody, more so, because the occurrence is of the year 1989. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail custody. 7. In the result, both these revision applications are dismissed with the modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioners as indicated above. The petitioners are directed to be discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.