Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2066 (PAT)

Harendra Rai v. State Of Bihar

2011-09-27

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2011
JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2002 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran in Criminal Appeal No.29/2001 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chapara in G.R. Case No.1870/1994, Trial No.862 of 2001 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.04.1994, the informant Ram Raj Rai was sitting at his door. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused were seen cutting palm trees standing on the land possessed by the informant. The informant alongwith his son Jaleshwar Rai went to his aforesaid field and protested. Thereafter, the co-accused Lagandeo Rai asked to kill him. His villager Narayan Chaudhary had climbed on the palm tree to cut palm leaves. As directed by the accused persons, he got down from the palm tree. Thereafter, the accused petitioner Harendra Raitaking fasuli, a sharp cutting weapon from the hand of Narayan Chaudhary and assaulted the informant on his left elbow and when his son Jaleshwar Rai made protest, the petitioner assaulted him on his right palm and right hand. The father and son sustained bleeding injury. Hearing Hulla of the informant, Jhakhar @ Jhagur Rai (P.W.2), Bacha Rai and wife of the informant Shayampati Devi came there at the place of occurrence and they found both the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The villagers brought both the injured at Revilganj Hospital. On the way of Revilganj hospital, the informant became unconscious. After 4 to 5 days of the occurrence, he regained consciousness and he found himself admitted in P.M.C.H as indoor patient. He had also seen his son Jaleshwar Rai admitted in P.M.C.H. The Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at P.M.C.H, Patna and forwarded it to the Officer-in- charge of Revilganj police station for investigation of the case. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. He had also seen his son Jaleshwar Rai admitted in P.M.C.H. The Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at P.M.C.H, Patna and forwarded it to the Officer-in- charge of Revilganj police station for investigation of the case. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner was charged under Sections 148 and 326 of the I.P.C. and other accused were charged under Sections 147 and 326 of the I.P.C. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 148 and 326 and the other accused were found guilty under Section 147 of the I.P.C. After hearing on the question of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and a find of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for six months under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to serve 3 months sentence. All the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Cr. Appal No.29/2001 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chapra. After hearing, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has been confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The petitioner should have been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence has taken place on 26.04.1994 and almost 17 years have passed. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony and the sentence of the petitioner deserves to be modified. He further submits that the petitioner has also remained in custody for about months. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has injured the informant and his son by a sharp cutting weapon and both of them had got their treatment in the P.M.C.H, Patna. Since the injury was grievous in nature, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act. However, she has fairly submitted that the sentence may be reduced. 3. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. However, she has fairly submitted that the sentence may be reduced. 3. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. It appears from the record that the petitioner and his son had been in P.M.C.H, Patna for their treatment and must have spent money in their treatment. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for more than 17 years and has also served the sentence for about two months. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner should be modified. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, which will be deposited in the trial court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the sentence of the petitioner as imposed by the learned trial court will revive and the petitioner will be taken into custody by the learned trial court to serve out the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment. If the fine is realized, it will be payable to the informant and his son in equal share as they have suffered injuries due to occurrence. In case the informant is dead, the amount payable to the informant will be given to his wife. 4. With this modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed.