Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1334 (PAT)

Prabhu Narayan Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2002-11-29

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2002
Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.2001, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1993. The revisionist was convicted under Section 302 by the Juvenile Court, Khagaria and he was sent to Special Home, Munger, for his confinement for a period of 3 years. 2. The case was instituted on the report of cousin brother of the deceased alleging therein that some boys were fishing in the Mandhara Ghat in tributary river. At 9 a.m. there was quarrel between the Prabhu Narayan Sharma and the deceased Mukesh Kumar over fishing. Prabhu Narayan Sharma buffeted the deceased on his cheek and catching him by the neck, threw him into the river and drowned him. After investigation police submitted charge- sheet and the appellant was tried by the Juvenile Court and was held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court remanded him to Special Home, Munger, and the appellate Court confirmed the findings and directions of sending him to the Special Home. 3. The revisionists lawyer addressed a fiery and lengthy argument and submitted that the trial Court committed factual error by recording an order of conviction against the revisionist because the facts and circumstances of the case indicated that the deceased died of drowning while catching fish in the pool of water in the subsidiary or tributary river which was full of weeds. However so far as the facts are concerned, from the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and the circumstances unleashed by the evidence of eye-witnesses and the hearsay witnesses, it does not transpire that the angler would enter into the pool of water for catching fish specially when the water was full of weeds and would take the risk of the being enmeshed by the weeds, so that he may be drowned. In any case, therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction recorded by the two Courts below cannot be interfered with in this revision. 4. The learned lawyer further referred to Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and submitted, that the trial Court assessed the age of the revisionist as 15 years and now the revisionist has already attained the age of 18 years. 4. The learned lawyer further referred to Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and submitted, that the trial Court assessed the age of the revisionist as 15 years and now the revisionist has already attained the age of 18 years. So under Section 21(l)(d), the second proviso, the revisionist cannot be sent back to the Special Home. Hence he may be released on probation of good conduct. 5. Of course, taking into consideration the provision as referred to by the learned advocate of the revisionist, I think it would be just and proper that the revisionist is directed to be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety to be executed by one of his parents to keep the revisionist under his order or her good care for the period of two years. In case the bond is not furnished as directed above, the revisionist himself or any of his parents shall pay Rs. 1000/- as fine. 6. With the above modification in the order of the appellate Court, this revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed with modification.