Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1238 (PAT)

Keshri Ram v. State of Bihar

2014-12-16

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Challenge in this appeal is judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2002 passed by F.T.C. No.3, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Sessions Trial No. 128/99/94/2002 convicting appellant, Shivdhari Ram under Sections 324, 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for two years respectively, appellant, Manohar Ram under Sections 325, 323 IPC directing to undergo R.I. for two years, one year respectively, appellants Keshri Ram and Daya Ram under Section 323 IPC, directing to undergo R.I. for one year and further directing to run the sentences concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants confined his argument relating to sentence inflicted against them and further submitted that they be released on due admonition in accordance with Probation of Offenders Act. To justify such submission, it has been submitted that from the judgment impugned as well as from the consistent evidence of the injured, more particularly, that of PWs-5 and 8, have admitted presence of counter case and in likewise manner, PW-1 had admitted presence of Shivdhari Ram in the hospital where he was also admitted, where injured were also admitted. It has also been submitted that PW-10, the doctor had also exhibited the injury report of respective appellants during course of his evidence as well as PW-9, the Investigating Officer had also supported presence of counter case coupled with submission of charge-sheet. The learned trial court had also taken cognizance of the aforesaid event. 4. It has fairly been submitted that though in specific terms none of the injured as well as other prosecution witness were suggested challenging the genesis as well as manner of occurrence but presence of all those materials justify the contention raised on behalf of appellants that the genesis as well as manner of occurrence as advanced on behalf of prosecution suffers from diminution so much so, suggest suppression of actual genesis as well as manner of occurrence. Though, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial court had considered and held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case for the offence whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced while acquitting remaining, again evidence of the prosecution witnesses comes under doubtful, suspicious categories. 5. Though, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial court had considered and held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case for the offence whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced while acquitting remaining, again evidence of the prosecution witnesses comes under doubtful, suspicious categories. 5. In the aforesaid background as well as in the background of the fact that the date of occurrence happens to be that of the year 1998, much water has flown and on account thereof, though maintaining the convictions under the Sections whereunder appellants have been convicted, need reconsideration so far sentence is concerned. More particularly, when there happens to be absence of criminal antecedents as well as when admittedly, there is version and counter version regarding the occurrence which clearly suggests that it was not a pre-meditated occurrence rather, erupted at the spur of moment which the prosecution also alleges. 6. Learned APP though, opposed the submission raised on behalf of appellants but fairly concedes that both the parties are agnates and the dispute arose on account of fetching water from a Government sponsored hand-pump. 7. Accordingly, maintaining the conviction so recorded by the learned trial court against each of the appellant, sentence is modified directing that each of the appellant will execute a bond of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety to be effective for one year. During midst thereof directing to maintain peace and good behaviour, in default thereof, to be present before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence whatever found imposed by the learned trial court vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2002. 8. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the instant appeal is dismissed. 9. Appellants are directed to be present before learned trial court within six weeks and will execute surety bond in compliance of the instant order.