RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.571 of 2002 .25-10-2011 order dated 7.03.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No.63/1994 by which the judgment and order dated 4.08.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in G.R. No.1757/1990, Trial No.442/1994 has been confirmed by which the petitioners were convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them to any punishment, they have been directed to be released on executing probation bond of Rs.3000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.08.1990 at about 5.00 A.M., the informant Jai-Jai Ram Singh (P.W.6) was returning to his house. When he reached near the field of Lakhan Singh, all the accused armed with Lathi making unlawful assembly assaulted him. On raising alarm, his brother Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Raja Ram Singh (P.W.5) came to his rescue; they were also assaulted by the accused. The reason for the occurrence is the land dispute between both the parties. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Naokothi P.S. Case No.75/1990 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After the trial, the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them to any punishment, they were directed to be released on furnishing probation bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and a good behaviour for a period of one year and in case any of the accused violates the direction of the court, he would have to appear and receive sentence by the trial court. This order has been passed by the learned trial court on 4.08.1994. Against this order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.53/1994, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

(3.) No one appears on behalf of the petitioners on repeated calls. Mrs. I.B.Pandey, Add.P.P. appears for the State and Mr. Pramod Manbans, Advocate appears for the Opposite Party No.2.