Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 549 (PAT)

Ramadhar Rai v. State of Bihar

2014-05-02

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1991, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of the petitioner no.1 under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and that of the other petitioners under sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, has acquitted the petitioner no.1 of the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in a case bearing Tr. No.1029 of 1991 (G.R. No.1064 of 1982) arising from Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.94 of 1982. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that while the informant Binda Rai was returning along with his brother Awadh Rai after obtaining loan from one Sunil Rai that they were intercepted by the accused and following a quarrel, it is alleged that whereas the petitioner no.1 Ramadhar Rai gave two Farsa blows on the head of the informant, the others assaulted him and his brother with Lathi. An FIR bearing Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.94 of 1982 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 147 and, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance being taken, the matter was put on trial before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. During the course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The injuries have been proved from the injury report as well as the evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W.7. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance being taken, the matter was put on trial before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. During the course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The injuries have been proved from the injury report as well as the evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W.7. The injuries caused by the Farsa were found to be grievous and it is considering the evidence on record and the oral evidence that the trial court while acquitting the accused of the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted the petitioner no.1 Ramadhar Rai under sections 324, 326 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year, two years and one year respectively on the said counts while the other accused were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The accused feeling aggrieved preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1991 and the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari vide judgment and order dated 17.5.2002 while confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in so far as the other petitioners are concerned, acquitted the petitioner no.1 of the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code while confirmed his conviction and sentence for the offences under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The accused petitioners being aggrieved by the appellate court judgment and order have preferred the present revision application which was heard on 19.8.2002 and the petitioners were released on bail. This revision application was thereafter admitted vide order passed on 7.10.2002 and has been taken up for final hearing and disposal today. 6. Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not chosen to contest the concurrent finding of facts passed by the courts below leading to the conviction but has endeavoured to argue on the question of sentence. 6. Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not chosen to contest the concurrent finding of facts passed by the courts below leading to the conviction but has endeavoured to argue on the question of sentence. He submits that whereas the trial court itself doubting the manner of occurrence, had acquitted the petitioners of the charges under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner no.1 of the offences under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code while confirming his sentence under section 324 and 148 of the Indiana Penal Code. He submits that although the injury was accepted by the courts below but they were not found to be grievous and that is the reason the petitioner no.1 was acquitted of the charges under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that it is manifest from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence was an outcome of a civil dispute and dates back to 15.7.1982, i.e. a period of almost 32 years. He submits that whereas the other petitioners were sentenced to six months on each of the counts under sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner no.1 was sentenced to one year imprisonment on each of the counts for the offence under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that going by the lower court records, the petitioner no.1 would be now aged over 75 years and thus considering the passage of time and the age of the petitioner, the sentence be modified accordingly. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 8. 32 years have passed since the occurrence took place. The petitioner no.1 who is charged with farsa blow would be about 75 years. The nature of allegation against the other petitioners is of inflicting lathi blows. The petitioners apart from suffering incarceration for the offences have been also subjected to the rigours of proceedings since last 32 years. In the circumstances discussed, this Court deems it just that the sentence awarded by the courts below be modified to the period undergone by the petitioners. 9. The petitioners apart from suffering incarceration for the offences have been also subjected to the rigours of proceedings since last 32 years. In the circumstances discussed, this Court deems it just that the sentence awarded by the courts below be modified to the period undergone by the petitioners. 9. This Court thus while upholding the conviction of the petitioners would modify the sentence awarded to them, to the period undergone by each of them and since the petitioners are already on bail vide order passed on 19.8.2002 hence they shall stand discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 10. With the modification in the sentence aforementioned this criminal revision application is dismissed. 11. Let the lower court records received be returned to the court concerned forthwith. ?