Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 201 (PAT)

Sri Niwas Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-12

B.N.P.SINGH

body2002
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner on being tried by Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. Aurangabad, suffered conviction under Sections 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and six months respectively. He also suffered conviction under Section 323. IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine so realised was to be paid to Smt. Chandramani Devi, who happened to be the injured. The findings recorded by the trial Court was assailed by the aggrieved petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1995/25 of the 1996 before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. and on appreciation of evidence placed on record, the lower appellate Court, while acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 341, IPC. there being no evidence about illegal confinement of the injured, confirmed the findings recorded by the Court below both in respect of guilt and also sentence imposed upon him and it is how that this revision is before this Court challenging the correctness of finding recorded by both the courts below. 2. The facts of the case are quite simple as it was alleged that on 20th November. 1990. while the petitioner was removing bricks from the custody of Chandramani Devi, on resistance by the latter, the petitioner along with others dealt blows with bricks on her, causing injuries to her. Seven witnesses were examined at trial including informant Chandramani Devi (PW 4) and three witnesses namely, Madho Singh (PW 1) Mohan Sharma (PW 2) and Bashist Narain Singh (PW 3), who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. It would be apt to state that Mohan Sharma (PW 2) only stated to have noticed Chandramani Devi with bleeding wound on her mouth. Chandramani Devi (PW 4) was the injured and apart from the Police Officer, who conducted the investigation of the incident, the State also examined Dr. D.N. Sharma (PW 6), who stated to have noticed corresponding injuries on the person of Chandramani Devi. 3. Chandramani Devi (PW 4) was the injured and apart from the Police Officer, who conducted the investigation of the incident, the State also examined Dr. D.N. Sharma (PW 6), who stated to have noticed corresponding injuries on the person of Chandramani Devi. 3. Contention raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioner was that the testimony of witnesses, who claimed to be ocular, suffered inconsistency and also that the finding recorded by the doctor was not in conformity with the evidence of the ocular witnesses and hence the prosecution case has to be discarded. The next limb of the argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was that the prosecution was launched in the year 1990 and the petitioner has suffered the ordeal of protracted litigation for about 12 years and he remained in custody for about a month and on these premises, it is urged that regard being had to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim and also in the backdrop of the litigation between the parties, ends of justice would be met if substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner was converted into fine. Learned Counsel for the State resisted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Evidences laid on behalf of the State had been coherent and ocular testimony of the witnesses received corroboration from the findings recorded by the doctor who noticed simple injuries on the person of the injured which were in the nature of laceration and abrasion. There have been concurrent findings of the Courts below about guilt of the petitioner and I find no good reason for interference on that count. So far the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, on consideration of the totality of the circumstances, while setting aside the sentence imposed on the petitioner under Section 323, IPC. he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-(five hundred), and default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, and for conviction under Section 379, IPC, in addition to the imprisonment already suffered by the petitioner, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and with this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. 1,000/- (One thousand) and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and with this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. The amount of fine must be paid within two months of the receipt of the order which, when realised shall be paid to the injured, otherwise, to her heirs.