Binod Mehta & Ors. vs The State of Bihar

Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 113/2007 arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 86 of 2005 whereby and whereunder appellants been convicted for committing offences under Sections 323/34 & 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing offences under Sections 323/34 IPC and simple imprisonment of one month under Section 341/34 IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case originates from the fardbeyan of Rajendra Mehta (PW-1) recorded on 23.06.2005. According to the informant, while he was ploughing his land at about 9:00 A.M., the accused persons objected, claiming the land belonged to them due to an earlier purchase. Laxman Mehta (appellant no. 2) allegedly assaulted the informant with a farsa on the head, Brahmdeo Mehta (appellant no. 6) assaulted him with an iron rod, and Satyanarain Mehta (appellant no. 7) inflicted a farsa blow on Siyaram Mehta. Ramdeo Mehta (appellant no. 3), Binod Mehta (appellant no. 1) and Upendra Mehta (appellant no. 5), allegedly, assaulted Arvind and Siyaram with lathis. It was further alleged that co-accused Amala Devi handed firearms to Laxman Mehta (appellant no. 2), who fired a shot, causing panic. Thereafter, the accused allegedly entered the informant's house, looted ornaments and cash, and set the house on fire, resulting in burning of jackfruit and Sahjan trees.

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Supaul P.S. Case No. 86/2005 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 379, 307 and 504/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and charges under Sections 148, 323, 324, 341 and 307/34 IPC were framed. However, appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 324, 307, 148 IPC.

In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1, namely, Rajendra Mehta in the injured informant who fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2, Kari Yadav did not support the prosecution regarding assault but deposed that he saw the accused persons setting fire upon the informant’s house. P.W. 3, Jhabbar Yadav is a post-occurrence witness. P.W. 4, namely, Arvind Mehta and P.W. 5, Siyaram Mehta are the injured eye witnesses of the occurrence and P.W. 6 was declared hostile.

On the other hand, no defence witness was examined and the defence only relied upon documentary Exhibits A to D, relating to title and land dispute.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this order.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenges the order of conviction and sentence on several grounds. He submits that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties and though farsa blows are alleged in the F.I.R. but as per injury report, the injuries were caused by hard-blunt substances. There is absolutely no allegation of overt act against these appellants and allegation of theft is also ornamental in nature. There is no independent eye witness of the occurrence and nature of injuries and fracture, alleged by the prosecution, could not be proved due to non-examination of the doctor. He further contends that in this case, Investigating Officer has also been not examined and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence of the appellants as he was not able to contradict the evidence of the witnesses and the place and manner of occurrence could not be proved. He contends that the trial court has wrongfully convicted the appellants ignoring material contradictions and hence, the impugned order of sentence and conviction are fit to be quashed and set aside on the basis of facts and circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contends that the incident took place in the year 2005 and appellants remained in custody during trial and there was no complaint about the conduct of the appellants during their period of custody.

In contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is based on consistent and cogent evidence which were produced during the trial. Injured witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.

On going through the rival submissions, evidences and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case, during trial, Medical Officer was not examined and prosecution failed to establish offences requiring proof of sharp weapon injuries. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution and no independent witness supported the allegation of assault. Non-examination of Investigation officer in the present case is a serious infirmity resulting prejudice being caused to the appellants, therefore, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on this score. However, this Court finds that the evidences are completely trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence that the accused persons assaulted the injured witness and set their house on fire with intention to voluntarily causing hurt to them. This Court further finds that the incident took place in the year 2005 and during the custody period, there was no complaint against these appellants.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 113/2007 arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 86 of 2005 is upheld and the order of sentence is modified to the period appellants have already undergone.

In that view of the matter, appellants, above named, are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection with this case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.

Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.