RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. appeal No. 103/92-82/92 by which he has set aside the judgment and order dated 28.9.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Biharsharif at Nalanda in complaint case No. 329(C)/ 90, Tr. No. 68/92 by which all the opposite party were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the charges under Sections 328 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, all the petitioners were convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, sentences awarded under each count have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Rajeshwar Singh filed a complaint-petition in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif disclosing that on 25.6.1990 at about 6 P.M. while he was sitting at his dalan, the accused Yaddu Ram armed with a sword, Krishna Ram armed with Bhujali and the rest accused-persons armed with lathi came at dalan and they started to abused the complainant and they also told that rain water of the house will flow through the lane even though the accused-persons had not an inch of land in the said lane. When the com- plainant replied that the would not allow them to flow refused water of house through the lane and then, accused-per- sons became furious. Further, it is stated that the accused Yaddu Ram instigated other accused-persons to kill the com- plainant and on his instigation, the accused-persons assaulted the com- plainant by kicks and fists. When witnesses made protest, they were also threatened by the accused-persons. Fur- ther it is alleged that the accused-persons also removed food grains, clothes and bed-sheet, pillow, quilt and Tosak from the dalan of the complainant and further they damaged the roof of the house by throwing bricks. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against all the accused-per- sons. Subsequently the trial concluded with the result as indicated above.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate the cogent finding of trial Court and has drawn adverse inference only on he ground that the petitioner did not go to the doctor for the treatment. It has been further submitted that the Court below has also drawn inference against the prosecution that the informant did not approach higher Police Officers after being refused by the local police to record his case.