LAWS(PAT)-2013-7-17

BAIJNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 08, 2013
BAIJNATH PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned lawyer of O.P. No.2 as well as learned APP for the State.

(2.) INITIALLY , the instant petition was filed on behalf of two petitioners/convict namely, Baijnath Prasad and Rakesh Kumar out of whom, Baijnath Prasad died and so his legal heirs were substituted on account of having the sentence of fine also.

(3.) COMPLAINANT Prem Kumar filed a complaint petition on 10.07.1995 for an occurrence committed on 07.07.1995 at about 9:00 p.m. putting an allegation that he had purchased Survey Plot No.1955 along with tiled shop standing thereupon wherein one Aklu Mian is a tenant for the last five years and is running Chand Tent House. On the alleged date and time of occurrence while Aklu Mian had gone to participate in "Urs Mela" after closing the shop, all of a sudden, accused, Baijnath Prasad (since deceased), Kedar Prasad (died during course of trial) and Rakesh Kumar along with other unknown persons broke open the lock and made house trespass and then thereafter took away all the articles belonging to Aklu Mian. The details thereof would be furnished by Aklu Mian. The witnesses have seen the accused persons along with unknown persons indulged in removing the articles as well as throwing of table and chair. On protest made by the complainant and witnesses, the accused persons threatened of life with the country made gun and on account thereof, none dared to intervene. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the same for holding an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to the court of Magistrate as per Section 192(2) of the Cr.P.C. whereupon inquiry commenced and concluded vide order dated 20.07.1995 by which cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections-448, 379, 504 of the IPC was taken up and the accused were summoned after whose appearance, the trial commenced and concluded in conviction of petitioner which was found confirmed in Cr.Appeal and accordingly both the judgments happens to be the subject matter of the instant revision.