Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1759 (PAT)

Munna Singh v. State Of Bihar

2011-08-19

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2011
JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 5, Ram Sagar Singh died on 11.1.2004, as such the proceeding is abated against him and his name may be permitted to be deleted. 2. The prayer is allowed. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 2 3. The name of petitioner no. 5, Ram Sagar Singh is permitted to be deleted. 4. The petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2002 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 1997 by which the judgment and order dated 17.6.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rosera in G. R. No. 294 of 1987, T. R. No. 69 of 1997 arising out of Bibhutipur P. S. Case No. 101 of 1987 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6th June 1987 at about 8 a.m., the informant, Jai Jai Ram Singh was going to watch his field. The accused Munna Singh, Ramakant Singh, Sri Krishna Singh all armed with Farsa, Hare Krishna Singh armed with Lathi chased to assault him. The informant ran from there. Thereafter, Ram Sagar Singh armed with farsa and Raj Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 3 Kishore Singh armed with Stick instigated to kill him. Thereafter, Ram Sagar Singh assaulted him with farsa. He fell down, thereafter other accused assaulted him with their weapons. The witnesses came there, thereafter all the accused fled away. He was taken to Sadar hospital where his Fard Beyan was recorded by the police. On fard beyan, Bibhutipur P. S. Case No. 101 of 1987 was instituted against the accused. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The accused, Ram Sagar Singh was charged under Sections 326,341,148,324 I.P.C. Other accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 341,148,147,324 and 323 I.P.C.. After trial, Ram Sagar Singh (deceased) was convicted and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326, three years under Section 324, two years under Section 148 and one month under Section 341 I.P.C.. The other accused were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Patna High Court CR. REV. After trial, Ram Sagar Singh (deceased) was convicted and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326, three years under Section 324, two years under Section 148 and one month under Section 341 I.P.C.. The other accused were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 4 Section 147, one month under section 341, three years under Section 324 and one year under Section 323 I.P.C. They were not convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. All the sentences of all the accused to run concurrently. Thereafter, they filed Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1997. After hearing the parties their conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 8.4.2002. Thereafter, they filed this criminal revision. 6. During the pendency of this revision application, the petitioner no. 5, Ram Sagar Singh died on 11.1.2004 and as such the whole proceeding is abated against him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly there is a land dispute between the accused and the prosecution party. There is no material on record to show that they have any criminal antecedent. Learned Appellate Court has not given any reason as to why Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 5 the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. be not given to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to get the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 8. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners while opposing their prayer. 9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent. It appears from the judgment of the trial court that at the time of conviction, petitioner no. 5, Ram Sagar Singh (deceased) was aged about 71 years, Raj Kishore Singh was aged about 85 years and Shri Krishna Singh was aged about 51 years. The occurrence has taken place on 6th June 1987. More than 24 years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. There is no Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 6 complaint that they have committed any overtact after the occurrence. 10. The occurrence has taken place on 6th June 1987. More than 24 years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. There is no Patna High Court CR. REV. No.347 of 2002 dt.19-08-2011 6 complaint that they have committed any overtact after the occurrence. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.7000/- (seven thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour to the satisfaction of learned trial court for a period of one year. In case of violation of terms of bond, the impugned judgment and order will revive and the petitioners will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence passed by the learned trial court. 11. In the result, this revision application is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence.