NASIRHUDDIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.1.1997 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S. T. No. 119/1989. By the impugned judgment, the trial court, though acquitting the petitioners of the relatively more serious charge of the attempted murder, convicted petitioner no. 1 under section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; petitioners 2 to 6 were convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE petitioners and the informant are adjacent neighbours and there is admittedly a long standing and bitter dispute between the two parties concerning a piece of Ghair Mazrua land lying in front of their houses. It is also admitted that several litigations concerning toe land was pending between them from before. The informant, however, claimed that the land was settled in his favour by the erstwhile Hathwa Raj and after the vesting of the Zamindari, his right over the disputed land was recognised by the State of Bihar and his name was accordingly entered in Register II. The petitioners refuted his Claim of settlement of the disputed land and maintained that that piece of land was used by them for ingress into and egrees from their house. They claimed the right of easement over the disputed land. On 10,2.1988, the date of occurrence the informant was digging a Nala over the land and according to him the petitioners went there armed with Pharsa, Lathi and gun and tried to stop him from digging the Nala. The informant asserted his right over the land wherupon the petitioners assaulted him with their respective weapons, as a result of which he sustained injuries.

(3.) ACCORDING to the defence it was the informant who was the aggressor. The further case of the defence was that in the same occurrence some of the petitioners had sustained injuries for which another case was instituted at their instance. The defence also examined some witnesses and produced the injury reports of some of the petitioners before the trial court.