RAMJEE THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE turned up on behalf of the appellant. Similar was the position earlier also. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

(2.) UNDER the circumstances, this court left with no other option but either to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the appellants, but there is general experience that such process takes much time and the court's burden are not reduced or to proceed without any such representation, taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276(SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit.

(3.) AS it appears that Complaint Case No. C43/2002 was preferred by the appellant against five persons who faced the trial for the offences under section 147, 148, 452, 323, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately vide order dated 3rd February 2001 passed by Sri Keshari Nandan Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka, appellants were convicted only for the offences under sections 147, 452, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced to undergo for a year for the offences under section 147, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and six months for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.