PARMANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was appellant before the court below, suffered conviction under Sections 323, 447, 241 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by Shri Shivanand Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in G.R. case No. 765 of 1995 and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of one month on each count. The petitioner suffered conviction also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months with direction that both the sentence shall run concurrently. The salient features of the case on which the petitioner was tried is that on 28th March, 1984 on the eve of Holi Festival, the petitioner along with two persons came to the house of Kaushal Kishore Singh and took him to task for involving him in a case of theft of pumping set. It was alleged that after said Kaushal Kishore Singh refuted accusations, the petitioners dealt blows with butt of pistol on his face causing injuries below the left eye. The other accusation attributed to the petitioner was about removal of Rs. 500/ - from his pocket. The charges too were framed against the petitioner on these counts and after the trial commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including Kaushal Kishore Singh.

(2.) THE defence too examined two witnesses, obviously, to counter the allegations attributed to the petitioners and the trial court while negativing plea of innocence of the petitioner, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced him in the manner stated above. After the aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Begusarai in criminal appeal No. 151 of 1998, the appellate court too endorsed the finding recorded by the trial against the petitioner. Now the aggrieved appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court in revision and it is sought to be urged on behalf of him that even though volume of documents had been placed on the record on behalf of the petitioner about there being land dispute between the parties, court below had overlooked them without good reasons.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of the court in a matter of revision, I am afraid that there may be any occasion for re -appraisal of the finding of the court below based on evidences placed on the record, unless the finding is shown to be perverse, unreasonable and contrary to weight of mass of evidence. The finding of guilt recorded by court below about assault of Kaushal Kishore Singh on his confinement, abusing him and also committing theft of money, was based on meticulous appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the State and appellate court too considered the matter in right perspective which did not require interference by this court. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the year 1984 and the accusations attributed to him, as has been discussed was about causing simple assault, abusing Kaushal Kishore Singh and making theft of money. My attention has also been drawn to the report received from the District Probation Officer mention of which also finds place in the judgment of the appellate court which would suggest that the petitioner was a first offender and he did not bear any criminal antecedent. In the background of these circumstances, while upholding conviction of the appellant and setting aside the sentence, I consider it expedient, regard being had to the age, character of the offender and also the circumstances in which the offence was committed, to direct the court below to release the petitioner on his entering into a bond with two sureties of the amount to be determined by the court below with a direction to appear and receive sentence when call -upon during the period of one year and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, and with this modification in sentence, the revision is dismissed.