BUTTA PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th August, 1991 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No 93 of 1991 dismissing the said criminal appeal in part in so far as it related to the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by 1st Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No 108 of 1982 under Sections 307 and 324 of the Code by judgment dated 6th July, 1991 The trial court had sentenced the petitioners to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of the Code and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Code However, the appellate court acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 307 of the Code

(2.) The incident leading to the trial of the petitioners took place on 9th August, 1981 at 1200 noon at village Chandralaya, PS Hajipur, District - Vaishah The prosecution case in brief was that the informant, Gul Bahar Paswan, alongwith his brother. Radhey Paswan, was getting the palm leaves and palm fruits plucked when petitioner No 1 arrived and protested However, the informant told him that the palm tree belonged to his family and he was getting the palm leaves and palm fruits plucked for his purpose In the meantime, petitioner No 2 arrived therewith a Hansua It was alleged that petitioner No 1 assaulted the informant by Hansua causing injury on his head and left hand and petitioner No 2 assaulted Radhey Paswan inflicting five injuries Report was lodged with the Police which, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and petitioners were tried The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of the prosecution case The learned trial court, on appraisal of evidence, held the charges to be proved against the petitioners and convicted and sentenced them The appellate court, on re-appraisal of evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court in so far as it related to conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 324 of the Code

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No 2 was a juvenile on the date of occurrence It is contended that the petitioner No 2 had stated his age to be about twenty two years at the time of his statement under Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial court as well as the appellate court had estimated the age of petitioner No 2 as twenty three years It is contended that in this view in the year 1981 the petitioner No 2 was less than sixteen years of age and he could not have been tried together with petitioner No 1 in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the prosecution evidence was not reliable It is also contended that the case diary could not have been brought on the record as evidence in the case Further contention was that the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been extended to the petitioners