Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 451 (PAT)

Bechan Rai Son Of Jhanman Rai v. State Of Bihar

2011-03-29

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants are aggrieved with the judgment dated, 16th March, 1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 290 of 1989/123 of 1992, by which he has convicted the Appellant No. 2 Under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for 5 years and addition to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 in default of which further sentenced to R.I. for one year. He has also been convicted Under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I., whereas the Appellants No. 1, 3 to 6 are convicted Under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.l. for one year and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default of which to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months R.l. and they are sentenced to undergo R.l. for six months Under Section 147 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21st August, 1988 at about 6 A.M. the Informant noticed that Palani had been fixed on the disputed lands by the Accused persons and when he protested, he was assaulted by the Appellant No. 3 with lathi and thereafter Appellant No. 2 also gave a garasi blow on his head. When PW. 3 and PW. 6 came to save him, they were also assaulted. The further allegation is that the Accused persons also committed theft from his house. 3. The case of the defence is that in fact PW. 6, the Informant, had taken a sale deed from one Prasu Rai, which land had been earlier purchased by the Appellants from one Sohagia Devi and when the Informant could not take possession of the land, the present case was instituted to pressurize them into vacating the land. The further case is that for the same piece of land a civil litigation was going on between the parties and in support of the said stand the defence examined three witnesses and proved a number of documents. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in the facts of the case no offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. would be made out, since even though there was no intervening circumstance the Informant and the others were spared their lives. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in the facts of the case no offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. would be made out, since even though there was no intervening circumstance the Informant and the others were spared their lives. The further submission is that it would not be a case of unlawful assembly since admittedly the occurrence took place over assertion of rights of the parties. 5. On going through the evidence on record as also the judgment of conviction, I find that not a single independent witness had been examined by the prosecution and in the background of land litigation it is not improbable that the Accused persons may have been falsely implicated since admittedly the occurrence had taken place over assertion of the rights of the Accused persons over a certain piece of land. 6. In view of such, I am inclined to acquit the Appellants of the charges. Hence this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants dated, 16th March, 1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 290 of 1989/123 of 1992 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.