RAMADHAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1991, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.701 of 2002 dt.02 -05 -2014 2 petitioner no.1 under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and that of the other petitioners under sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, has acquitted the petitioner no.1 of the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in a case bearing Tr. No.1029 of 1991 (G.R. No.1064 of 1982) arising from Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.94 of 1982.

(3.) MR . Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not chosen to contest the concurrent finding of facts passed by the courts below leading to the conviction but has endeavoured to argue on the question of sentence. He submits that whereas the trial court itself doubting the manner of occurrence, had acquitted the petitioners of the charges under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner no.1 of the offences under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code while confirming his sentence under section 324 and 148 of the Indiana Penal Code. He submits that although the injury was accepted by the courts below but they were not found to be grievous and that is the reason the petitioner no.1 was acquitted of the charges under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that it is manifest from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence was an outcome of a civil dispute and dates back to 15.7.1982, i.e. a period of almost 32 years. He submits that whereas the other petitioners were sentenced to six months on each of the counts under sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner no.1 was sentenced to one year imprisonment on each of the counts for the offence under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that going by the lower court records, the petitioner no.1 would be now aged over 75 years and thus considering the passage of time and the age of the petitioner, the sentence be modified accordingly.