KUNJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.1996 passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 37/94 dismissing the appeal with modification in sentence after converting the conviction under Section 307, IFC to under Section 325, IPC and the petitioner No. 1 was directed to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 325, IPC whereas the petitioner No. 2 was directed to be released on executing a bond of Rs. 2000/ - with two sureties of the like amount each for keeping peace and maintaining for a period of three years under Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act. The appellate court further directed both the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/ - each separate which was paid to the victim Kailash Prasad in addition to fine or to suffer S.I. for one year in default.

(2.) ONE Smt. Lakhshwari Devi gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that on 7.5.1991 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused Gunu Devi petitioner No. 2 was throwing directed soil in the orchard in front of the house of the informant which was objected by the husband of the informant whereupon accused/petitionerNo. 1 and his wife petitioner No. 2 along with other started abusing. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 Kunj Bihari Singh started assaulting the husband of the informant. He was also assaulted by the petitioner No. 2 with lathi as a result of which the husband of the informant became un -conscious. Accordingly the first information report was lodged which was registered under Sections 307/323/34 of the IPC The police after completing investigation, submitted charge -sheet against both the petitioners. The witnesses were examined in the court below and after hearing both sides, the trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years each. However, there was no sentence passed for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THEREAFTER both the petitioners preferred this revision application alleging that the court below committed error in convicting the appellants and the judgment passed by the court below is fit to be set -aside.