TAIYAB MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 140/93/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari by which the learned Court below has confirmed the judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Motihari whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 379 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months or each count which have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts of the case that the complainant had got 4 kathas 11 dhurs of land which was settled by the receiver appointed by the do Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Motihari in Title Suit No. 198/88 on payment of Rs. 95/- only for a period of one year. It has been stated that the complainant had planted save paddy crops. It has been alleged that the said paddy crops was ready to harvest on the date of occurrence the accused-persons about 12 in numbers armed with lathi, bhala garasa came their and harvested said paddy crops in spite of the protest of the complainant. They took away the said paddy crops by making bundles. In course of protest, the petitioners tried to catch the complainant but because of intervention of the witnesses in the neighbouring fields, they could not do so but in that course it has been stated that the petitioner Ali Hassan Mian assaulted him on his back and head with lathi. It has been further stated that the complainant and Chaukidar went to inform the Police where they saw the petitioner having talk with the Police Officer but even then complainant dared to informed about the aforesaid occurrence but the said Police Officer did not hear him and asked him to go to the Receiver. Thereafter, the complainant met the Receiver but the receiver informed him that because of collusive approach of the Police Officer he has resigned from the Receivership and advised him to move the competent Court. The complainant lodged a complaint in the Court stating therein that the petitioners have forcibly cut the paddy crops which was about 12 mounds worth about Rs. 1,200/- and taken it away. On the receipt of the complaint-petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complaint on solemn affirmation and thereafter having considered the complaint-petition learned Judicial Magistrate has found the prima facie case under Sections 147, 148 and 379 of the IPC was made out and accordingly he took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and ordered to issue summons against the petitioners. Thereafter, the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. I have gone through the judgment as well as the documents of both the Courts below. Both the Courts have discussed evidence of the witnesses in detail and come to the concurrent conclusion and have passed the impugned order. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of conviction has vitiated on account of non-consideration of the evidence and the same has caused miscarriage of justice. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court. Coming to the conclusion on the point of sentence the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and since then the petitioners have been mentally and physically punished during this prolong litigation and there is no criminal antecedent and no previous conviction against them. Moreover, they have remained in jail custody for some time. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentences of the petitioners.

(3.) Having regard, to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the occurrence took place at about 11 years back and petitioners have remained in jail custody for some time. Now, it is not proper to send them again in the jail custody to serve out the remaining period of sentenced. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met, if the sentences of these petitioners are reduced to the period they have already in jail custody with a fine of Rs. 200/- each to the deposited by these petitioners within three months from the date of order. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo R.I. for one month. It is made clear that the amount of fire when realised by these petitioners shall be paid to the complainant Sukul Ram (PW 4) by way of compensation.