JAI NARAIN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the above named appellants against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri B.N. Singh, Sessions Judge of Camp Court at Bagaha, District West Charnparan. Convict Jai Narain Sah was convicted under Sections 148 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under each of the above sections. Convict Mohan Sah was convicted under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months under each of the above sections and the rest of the convicts namely Sheo Sagar Sah, Nawal Sah, Suraj Banshi Hazam and Shankar Sah were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months. All the sentences awarded against all the convicts were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as per the fardbeyan of the informant, was to the effect that on 25.6.1984 the informant was sitting at his danoaja, where one Chhote Lal, son of Ragho Raut came to him and told him that accused Nai Narain Sah, alongwith some other persons was getting his field ploughed. The informant went to the concerned field, accompanied by Raghu Nath Pandey, Manager Pandey, Kalyan Pandey, Sipahi Pandey and Bindeshwari Raut, and protested whereupon he was fired at by Jai Narain Sah. Other accused -persons also assaulted him and some other members of his party. Subsequently, accused -appellants were prosecuted and put on trial.

(3.) BUT from the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge it is apparent that, he came to the finding that both parties indulged in mutual exchange of assault and the accused -appellants were found in possession of the disputed land. It is also further apparent that the informant went to the P.O. field along with some other persons, which would indicate that they had gone there with all preparation, not with any pious intention. From this, it will follow that informant was the aggressor party and accused -appellants acted in self -defence in exercise of their right oil private defence to property and person. In such circumstance, their act of causing some injury on the informant's party was fully justified, specially in view of their conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 323 as also 147 and 148, I.P.C. and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused -appellants deserved benefit of doubt or at least they were entitled to act in self -defence of their property and person. So, in any case, they were entitled to acquittal.