LAWS(PAT)-2011-10-12

MAHESI SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 20, 2011
MAHESI SAH, SON OF LATE RAMKISHAN SAH (ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SALEMPUR, P S -UJIARPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR) AND OTHERS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No.164/1998 by which the judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Dalsinghsarai in C.R. No.351/1987, Trial No.43/1998 convicting the petitioners under Sections 452, 447, 323 and 427 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year, six months, six months and one month with a fine of Rs.500/-each have been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.10.1987 at about 2.00 P.M, the complainant Shivji Mahto was constructing his house over the land in respect of his Basgit Parcha, the accused petitioners armed with various weapons entered into his house and brutally assaulted him. When his son Ram Chandra Mahto came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused petitioners. They demolished the thatched house of the complainant and removed some articles worth Rs.700/-from his house. The complaint was filed in the court of learned S.D.J.M, Dalsinghsarai. After inquiry, prima facie case was found against them. After the trial, the accused were held guilty and were sentenced, as aforesaid. Thereafter, they filed Cr. Appeal No.164/1998, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence has taken place on 14.10.1987. More than 24 years have passed and they have been suffering from mental agony. They have also been in custody for some time. He has further submitted that the compromise petition was filed before the learned appellate court on 15.10.2001, but it has not been considered.