LAWS(PAT)-1968-8-27

LAKHI DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On August 19, 1968
Lakhi Das Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners along with one Ambika Singh were tried for offences under Sections 147, 448, 380 and 342, Indian Penal Code. The learned Munsif Magistrate, Begusarai, convicted them under Section 147, 448 and 342, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under each section, "ordering further that these sentences will run concurrently. Against this order of convictions and sentences, there was an appeal which was heard and decided by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr. He did not find the petitioners guilty under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted them of that charge, But he maintained their convictions under Sections 147 and 342, Indian Penal Code, awarding them a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment under each of these two counts, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. As against this order of conviction and sentence, this present revision has been filed in Court.

(2.) When this revision petition was pending here, the complainant and the accused persons have compounded the offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, and a prayer has been made that this composition should be accepted by the court. Now that good feelings have been restored between them, I do not think that this Court should stand in their way and reject the compromise. In the circumstances, therefore, this compromise is accepted.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further argued that as a court of revision, this Court may not like to interfere in the finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below; but if he has got any substantial point of Jaw to raise, the same should be considered by this Court. In my opinion, there cannot be any objection to this aspect of the matter I may not enter into details about the offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, which has been compounded, but as it has been argued before me that on the admitted facts of this case, this section is inapplicable, I may make some observations.