SUNIL PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Sunil Paswan has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 341, 307 of the I.P.C. while appellant Karu Paswan has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 of the I.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 05.02.2015 and for that, appellant Sunil Paswan has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, additionally, simple imprisonment for 15 days, respectively, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, while appellant Karu Paswan has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, simple imprisonment for 15 days, respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order of sentence dated 10.02.2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge-5th, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No.253 of 2014.

(2.) Appeal was called out, but none appeared on behalf of appellants and so, Sri Animesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel been requested to assist the Court as an Amicus Curiae, which he accepted. During course of hearing, when the record has been gone through, it has been located that on account of having been convicted and sentenced under bailable offences, appellant Karu Paswan was released on provisional bail vide order dated 10.02.2015 by the learned lower Court effective till filing of the appeal. However, from the order sheet dated 10.02.2015, it is evident that learned lower Court had not accepted bail bond having been filed on his behalf. Even then, appellant Karu Paswan was let off on provisional bail. It is further evident that when appeal has come up for admission on 14.05.2015, though it was admitted, but no prayer was made on behalf of appellant Karu Paswan for confirmation of provisional bail, which he was enjoying since before vide order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned lower Court and instead thereof, both the appellants namely Sunil Paswan and Karu Paswan were released on bail till pendency of instant appeal as prayed for. That being so, on account of non-confirmation of provisional bail, presence of appellant Karu Paswan was not at all recognizable in the eye of law before the Court and so, the appeal relating to him is found non-maintainable in terms of Rule-8 of Chapter-XII of the Patna High Court Rules. The same view is found also endorsed by the Division Bench in Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 2015 (4) P.L.J.R. 764 and Chandra Shekhar Bharti (in 1746) Chandra Pratap Singh @ C.K. Singh @ Chand Pratap Singh (in 1627) Dr. Braj Bhushan Prasad @ Dr. Brij Bhushan Prasad (in 1603) Chhote Sharma and Anr. (in 1709) Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 2014 (2) P.L.J.R. 756, whereupon instant appeal against appellant Karu Paswan is dismissed, summarily. That being so, the Appellant Karu Paswan is directed to surrender before the lower Court to suffer the sentence within fortnight, failing which, the learned lower Court will proceed against him in accordance with law.

(3.) Ashok Paswan (PW-7) gave his fard-bayan on 05.02.2014, while he was at Primary Health Centre, Patory at 5.45 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. on account of dispute over feast, his co-villagers Sunil Paswan, Karu Paswan and Param Paswan began to abuse him near his house. On his protest, they have assaulted him with fists and slaps. During midst thereof, his father Ram Udesh Paswan came and intervened whereupon Sunil Paswan rushed to his house and returned back with sword and gave sword blow over head of his father which, fortunately, did not strike over the same and instead thereof, caused injuries over cheek. Then thereafter, he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Patory where he was undergoing treatment.