LAWS(PAT)-1976-11-13

NARESH NONIA Vs. STATE

Decided On November 18, 1976
NARESH NONIA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the conviction of all the petitioners Under Section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 and the sentence of thirteen months' rigorous imprisonment passed thereunder as also against the orders of conviction of petitioners 1 and 2 Under Section 144 and the sentence of seven months' rigorous imprisonment passed thereunder and that of petitioners 3 and 4 Under Section 143 and the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment thereunder, the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that one Ganesh Prasad Rai (P. W. 7) has got 60 bighas of culturable land in village Chaktola and he had grown wheat over an area of 4 bighas out of the same. He is not a resident of this village and, therefore, has got a . chhawni for the purpose of agricultural operations and his brother Brijbihari Rai (P. W. 3) looked after the cultivation. On the 25th of March, 1965 at about 6/7 a. m. Brijbihari was making a round of his field and when he arrived at the place where wheat crops had been grown, he found the four petitioners along with one Fakira Nonia (who died during the pendency of the case) harvesting the wheat crop with the help of labourers. Petitioner Ghura Nonia alias Ghuchu Nonia was armed with an unlicensed gun and petitioner Naresh Nonia was armed with a bhala while others were armed with lathis. It was further said that the prosecution party did not protest because in the previous year a clash had taken place with these very petitioners which resulted in the murder of two persons. Brijbihari, therefore, rushed to the police station and lodged a first information report at 10.30 a. m. the same day.

(3.) On the basis of the first information, the police submitted charge sheet. The petitioners were charged with offences Under Sections 144 and 379, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 The learned Magistrate, however, convicted the petitioners as stated above. The petitioners went up in appeal though unsuccessfully. Hence this application.