SUNDESHWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants Bhola Rai, Ramesh Rai, Madan Rai and Ramdeyal Rai have been convicted Under Section Section 147, 323, 342 and 307/149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to a period of one year Under Sections 147, 323 and 342 I.P.C. and three years Under Section 307/149 I.P.C. The Appellants Sundeshwar Rai, Awadhesh Rai, Murari Rai and Devendra Thakur have been convicted Under Sections 307, 342, 307/114 and 149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to a period of one year Under Section 342 I.P.C. and two years Under Section 149 I.P.C. and seven years Under Section 307/114 I.P.C. Appellants Sundeshwar Rai and Devendra Thakur have also been convicted Under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for a period of five years as also Under Sections 149 and 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years and one year respectively by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 110/104 of 1986/1989 by a judgment dated 6.9.1995.

(2.) The prosecution case is that in the morning of 16.2.1982 when the informant Durgesh Charan Prasad Kumar alias Pandav Kumar was going towards his mill, all the accused persons surrounded him and thereafter the Appellant Sundeshwar Rai is said to have given a farsa blow on his head, which he tried to ward of with his right arm. Appellant Murari Rai is said to have given orders, upon which the Appellant Sundeshwar Rai once again gave a farsa blow on the head and Appellant Devendra Thakur assaulted him with farsa causing injuries to him. The rest of the accused persons assaulted him with the weapons held by them. The informant ran to save himself and in the mean while, the police party intervened, which fired in the air, on account of which the accused persons ran away.

(3.) The defence of the Appellants was that the informant and his hired henchmen had tried to take forcible possession of the disputed house situated north of Kalyanpur Chowk on the same day and in that process a crowd had assembled in favour of the accused persons since the wife of Appellant Sundeshwar Rai used to run a shop in the disputed house. The defence also brought a number of documents and witnesses in support of this version.