HARDEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Ramyas Yadav, was convicted under Sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and 3 months respectively. Appellant, Hardeo Yadav and Kamla Yadav, were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for six months each for the offence under Sections 325/34, IPC and RI for the three months each under Sections 323, 147, IPC. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently Appellants, Lalu Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav were convicted under Sections 147 and 148, IPC. However, both were let off on admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as mentioned in the fardbeyan, was to the effect that on 10.9.1983 at 10.00 a.m., the informant was at his shop. Suddenly there came Ramyas Yadav armed with garasa, Lalu Yadav armed with bhala, Rajdeo Yadav armed with bhala, Kamla Yadav and Hardeo Yadav armed with lathi. These persons asked the informant to come out from the shop, whereupon the informant asked them as to what was the matter. Thereafter, Ramyas Yadav told him to come out after calling him names, as sala, and immediately hurled garasa blow on the informant which was warded off by the balance in the hands of the informant. However, the garasa blow fell upon the head of the informant causing him injury. Thereafter, the informant fell outside his shop, whereafter Rajdeo Yadav dealt bhala blow upon the victim which hit him on the left side of the stomach, causing him a minor injury. Thereafter, Hardeo Yadav dealt with lathi blow on the informant, who raised alarm and wanted to escape, but Kamla Yadav also dealt lathi blow upon him. The informant's nephew, Ram Sumiran Yadav, came to the rescue the informant hearing his alarm and then, Kamla Yadav and Hardeo Yadav assaulted him with lathi. The cause of the occurrence, as given in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4), is that the accused Ramyas Yadav was running a shop given by the informant near Kenduadih pool in rent, three years prior to the occurrence. Ramyas Yadav was not paying rent and, hence, there was a case pending in the Court. The informant had a garden at Beech Bahihary which was usually subjected to damage by the she-buffalo of the accused and so there was a dispute between the informant and the accused-appellants.

(3.) The accused-appellants had alleged false implication on account of enmity and also took the defence that it is they, who were assaulted by the informant's party for which there was a counter-case.