Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1166 (PAT)

Ram Sakha Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-09-23

AKHILESH CHANDRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. - Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 28th January, 2003 passed by lower appellate Court i.e. learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 1998 confirming the conviction of both the appellants (here petitioners) under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Ram Sakha Singh (petitioner No. 1) under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Bano Singh (petitioner No.2) under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and one month respectively under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and one year six months under Sections 325 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, as awarded by Sri Sudhakar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in G.R. No. 2595 of 1993 (Trial No. 19 of 1998) arising out of Naya Gaon Police Station Case No. 49 of 1993. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below have not considered the mandatory provision as contemplated under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, after some arguments, it is conceded that the trial Court has considered the provisions, but finding the offence of being graver nature did not grant the benefit to the petitioners-appellants. 4. It is also contended that both the sides are descendent of common ancestor, but due to land dispute there was some conflict between them and in counter case arising out of same occurrence, the informant of the instant case though stand convicted, but released under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on execution of bond, but at the same time, it is evident that in the counter case, Annexure-I, there was no application under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is also pointed out that after dismissal of the appeal before being released by the order of this Court in instant revision, both the petitioners-appellants have suffered detention for about a week and due to prolonged litigation for about twenty years they have suffered a lot economically, physically and mentally and in spite of substantially being punished they are ready to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- payable to the injured informant. 6. 6. In view of the above, taking into consideration the inter-relationship between the parties as well as the time consumed etc., subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- each to the injured informant in the Court below within a fortnight with only modification in sentences as period already undergone in custody, this revision application stands disposed of. 7. As prayed for, let a copy of this judgment communicated to the Court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioners for immediate needfuls. Revision disposed of.