RAM SURAT CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Surat Choudhary happens to be the sole petitioner of Cr. Revision No.97/2013 whereas Paras Nath Mali @ Paras Mali,, Deo Narayan Sharma happen to be the petitioners of Cr. Revision No.196 of 2013 commonly originate from the successive judgments dated 05.06.1998 passed by Sri Vikram Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Bhojpur at Arrah in connection with G.R. No.2160 of 1993 whereby and whereunder all the three petitioners named above along with Supan Choudhary (since deceased) were found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 379/34 IPC and further each of them was directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days, one month, one month, nine months respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently as well as the judgment of confirmation dated 30.11.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cr. Appeal No.40 of 1998, accordingly been heard analogously and are being dispose of by common order.

(2.) WHILE assailing the successive judgments, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the finding so arrived at by the successive courts below are bad in law as well as on facts hence is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that neither the genesis of occurrence nor the manner of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution witness in a manner as has been advanced through initial version of the prosecution thus, making material development and embellishment in the prosecution. It has also been submitted that because of the fact that prosecution had posed the real cause for occurrence relating to settlement of pond in favour of son of the informant which actually belongs to Bhola Sinha by deceitful means and for that an application has been made by the leneal descendants of Bhola Sinha supported by these petitioners, on account thereof they have been penalized by the prosecution party. It is apparent from the cross -examination of witnesses itself that none of the family members of Bhola Sinha are residing at the village and in absence thereof, petitioners are the person who take care of the interest of son of Bhola Singh.

(3.) AT the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submission and submitted that by concurrent finding complicity of petitioners during commission of crime is fully proved and on account thereof did not require interference during course of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence both the petition are fit to be dismissed.