SITO MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EIGHT appellants were put on trial after being charged with the commission of offences under Sections 147, 323 and 436 of the IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.140 of 1994. By judgment dated 13.06.2002, appellant Sito Mehta was held guilty of committing offence under Section 436 IPC while the remaining seven appellants were convicted of offences under Sections 147, 323 and 448 of the Penal Code. The appellants were heard on sentence on 22.06.2002 and while Sito Mehta was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, appellant nos.2 to 8 were directed to be released on execution of bond of Rs.1,000/ -each for keeping peace and being good behaviour for a period of one year. The judgment of conviction and order of sentenced passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa has been questioned by the appellants by preferring the present appeal.

(2.) MAHAVIR Mehta, the informant of the case, gave his fardbeyan before P.W.8 S.M.Zikrullah, Sub -Inspector of Police, Sonbarsa police station stating that the accused persons came armed with lathi while the informant was sitting in the courtyard of his house and started dealing blows with the weapon both to him and his wife P.W.3, Smt. Baby Devi. Appellant Satya Narayan Kamat asked the informant to vacate his house as he had purchased the land from one Hirday Narain Mehta. The informant and his wife (P.W.3) were not ready to obey the commands of Satya Narayan Kamat, whereupon the couple was picked up by the accused persons and thrown out of the house, during which course, a silver hasuli weighing 1/2 K.G and valued at Rs.3,000/ - was snatched from the neck of P.W.3 Smt. Baby Devi. Specific allegation was made against appellant Sito Mehta that he set fire to the house of the informant as a result of which it was completely gutted.

(3.) AS regards the reason for committing the offence, it was stated by Mahavir Mehta(not examined) that he had purchased the house along with the land from one Bhubneshwar Mehta who was the maternal uncle of Hirday Narain Mehta, who at the time of purchase of the land was minor and who had been put into the lawful guardianship of the said Bhubneshwar Mehta. Subsequently when Hirday Narain Mehta attained majority, the accused persons claimed having purchased the same land with the house from Hirday Narain Mehta and wanted to resume possession of the land and house forcibly by throwing out the informant and it was for that purposes that the offences had been committed. It was stated that in order to committing the offence and in order to completing their act of ejecting the informant from his possession, the accused persons also had driven away cattle of the informant from the cattle shed and had tethered their own cattles in the shed.