Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1381 (PAT)

Darogi Singh v. State Of Bihar

2011-07-11

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and also a fine of Rs. 500/- each to be paid to the injured the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 341 of 1990 by a Judgment dated 28.2.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Ramdeo Singh is that on 26.3.1988 when he found Bamboo shoots being cut by the accused persons from his field, they protested at which the accused persons variously armed came and assaulted the Informant and seven others. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-1 is on the point of the sale deed of the accused persons from one Chhabila Devi as gift and that the Bamboo clump fell in the share of the Informant which the accused persons were attempting to cut. PW-2 Parshu Ram Singh another eye witness completely supported the case of the prosecution on the manner and place of occurrence. PW-3 another eye witness fully deposed in favour of the prosecution as an eye witness. PW-4 the 4th eye witness also deposed that the Bamboo Clump fell in the share of the Informant and accused persons had attempted to forcibly cut it away and when protested, the injured had been assaulted. PW-5 Ramdeb Singh is the Informant who has given the same version as he had in the Fardbeyan. PW-6 is the next injured witness and stated that he also had been assaulted in the transaction when he protested over the action of the accused persons. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer whereas PW-9 is the Doctor who found injuries on all the witnesses. 4. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses were examined and many documents were brought on record to show that in fact, the land in question fell in the share of the accused persons and subsequently, the matter has been compromised between the parties. There is no denial that there was a counter version of the occurrence in which the witnesses were accused. 5. Considering the circumstances emerging in the case as also the facts that the matter was compromised between the parties taking the holistic view of the situation, the Appellants are acquitted of the charges. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. 5. Considering the circumstances emerging in the case as also the facts that the matter was compromised between the parties taking the holistic view of the situation, the Appellants are acquitted of the charges. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Case No. 341 of 1990 by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Munger, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.