RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioners along with some other persons were prosecuted for commission of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted these two petitioners underSections 379, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each "of those sections with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. They were acquitted of the charges under Sections 143 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Other accused persons who were put on trial were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. On appeal, the appellate court set aside the conviction under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It maintained the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in lieu of the sentences of imprisonment fined each of these petitioners to the extent of Rs. 200.00 under Section 427 and Rs. 100.00 under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 26-10-1965 at about 1 P.M. when Thakur Dayal (P.W. 7) had been to Gaya Hospital for his treatment, these two petitioners along with other accused persons began to demolish the southern portion of his house which comprised of a verandah and a room. An information to this effect was given to the police station at Rafiganj which was entered in the station diary. Two constables were deputed with Jeo Narain Vishwakarma, who had given that information. They came to the place of occurrence. On arrival, they found that the house was completely demolished. Deo Lal Sao (P.W. 1) who had also gone to Gaya Hospital with Thakur Dayal on return found the house demolished and, as such, he lodged information to that effect which was, also recorded in the station diary. The next morning, that is to say, on 27-10-1965 on the strength of the aforesaid Sanha, Vindhyachal Prasad Sinha, the then Officer-in-charge of the police station went to the place of occurrence and recorded Fardbeyan on the basis of which a formal first information report was drawn up and a case was instituted with the aforesaid result.

(3.) The defence was that the demolished structure was on plot No. 509 which was in possession of these petitioners and the allegations of the prosecution against them was false.