RAMANAND MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) '' The appellants called in question the legality of the impugned judgment dated 3.6.1992 rendered by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Ojha 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar in S. Tr. No. 37/86 whereby he has convicted the appellant Upendra Mandal under Sections 148, 325 IPC, appellant Jageshwar Mandal under Section 148, IPC and the appellants Sheo Narain Mandal, Ghanshyam Mandal, Deo Narain Mandal and Ramanand Mandal under Section 147 IPC. The appellant Upendra Mandal was sentenced to undergo RI for five years for the offence under Section 325 IPC and RI for three years under Section 148 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant Jageshwar Mandal was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148. IPC and the rest of the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 147 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as -˜the accused) is as follows : On 28.7.1983 at 5.00 p.m. accused Deo Narain Mandal and Ghanshyam Mandal started ploughing the field of the informant which was protested by him and on this the other accused persons also reached there, among whom the accused Upendra Mandal was holding bhala, accused Jageshwar Mandal, arrow and others, lathi and started assaulting the informant. It is further stated that the brother of the informant and then his wife and sister -in -law came for his rescue but they were also assaulted. The informant was then dragged on to his house and the accused Ghan Shyam Mandal set his house on fire. The accused persons on the intervention of Jiwachh Mandal (PW 1) and Badri Mandal fled away. The informant was taken to the hospital where he was treated and his fardbeyan was recorded on 29.7.1983 at about 7.00 a.m. by the ASI Kishori Singh of Katihar PS. The case was then investigated and the police submitted charge sheet against the above noted six accused persons.

(3.) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that no occurrence as alleged took place and they have been falsely implicated on account of the land dispute.