JUGAL DUSADH @ JUGAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1989 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 18\87(105\87). Some of the accused appellants had been charged under Section 307, IPC while some other accused have been charged under Section 307/148, IPC and some others under Section 307/149 of the IPC.

(2.) The dispute was with regard to fishery right over the pond. It was allegation that these accused persons had broken the temporary house constructed by the Informant Party on the bank of pond for the purpose of fishing and caused assault on some of the members of the informant party and took some valuable articles. After considering the injury and the way in which the occurrence took place the learned Sessions Judge found that the accused-appellant No. 1 should be convicted under Section 325, IPC read with Section 379, IPC. He was sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 325, IPC and for one year R.I. under Section 379, IPC. Appellant No. 10 has been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Appellant Nos. 4 and 10 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 have been convicted under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Appellant Nos. 5 and 9 have been convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for six months. On hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant and the State Counsel, I have scrutinised the impugned judgment carefully and cautiously and I have also gone through the evidence on record. The individual witnesses from the side of the prosecution party has been scrutinised and discussed in the impugned judgment. Appellants case was there that they had the right to fish and they had been debarred by the Informant party and, as such the false case has been instituted. That defence version has also been considered by the Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. The conviction arrived at by the independent scrutiny of the individual witnesses as also on consideration of the defence case, I could find that the same was proper and justified but in the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the sentence is too harsh. The occurrence took place long 13 years back and by this time, the accused-appellants have to suffer the pangs of the criminal prosecution and there was also sufferance mentally, physically and financially. Consideration that aspect of the matter, I do not find it a fit case wherein the accused-appellants should be asked to go back to the jail custody for serving the balance of the sentence, as they remained in custody for some time during the course of trial. As there was sufferance from the informant party also, I hereby minimise the sentence imposed to the period undergone along with fine of Rs. 1000/-each by the accused-appellants to be deposited within six weeks next from this date before the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant should serve simple imprisonment for two months each. It is made clear on deposit of the fine amount, the same should be disbursed in favour of the injured persons of the Informant party as a compensation towards their sufferance.

(3.) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed after modification of sentence.