AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 died during the pendency of this revision application and he seeks permission to delete his name.
The learned counsel for the opposite party does not convert this fact.
The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete the name of petitioner no.1 Ram Prasad Rai.
The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2002 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.236/2000 by which the judgment and order dated 31.08.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur in G.R.No.470/2001, Trial No.504/2000 has been confirmed with modification in the sentence.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated with respect to the land of plot no.105, Khata No.108, Tauzi No.5061, Thana No.35, Area 15 Khatas situated in Mauza- Babakpur under the Danapur Police Station on the petition of the informant, notice to show-cause was served upon the informant and the accused. In the night of 3/4.04.1991, the accused petitioners alongwith some unknown accused armed with deadly weapons arrived at the land in dispute. The informant and her father P.W.2 were chased and thereafter, committed the theft of Khesari crops from the field causing loss worth Rs.4500/-.
On the basis of the written report of the informant, Danapur P.S. Case No.155/1991 was instituted against the petitioners. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, all the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years u/s 379 of the I.P.C. by the learned trial court. Against that order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.236/2000. After hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and the sentence of the petitioners was modified. The petitioner no.1 was directed to be released after executing a bond of two sureties for a period of one year for keeping peace and good behaviour and the sentence of other petitioners were reduced to a period of one year from two years u/s 379 of the I.P.C.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence has taken place on 3.04.1991 and more than 20 years have passed and since then, the petitioners have suffering from mental agony. It has been further submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for some time.
The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioners have caused a loss to the complainant opposite party no.2 and as such, the petitioners do not deserve further modification in the sentence.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that there is no material on the record to show that the accused have any criminal antecedent. They have been suffering from mental agony for more than 20 years. It will be not proper to send the petitioners in jail.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the sentence of the petitioners deserves to be modified.
Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.1000/-.
The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of fine within six weeks in the Nazarat, Civil Court, Danapur in connection with aforesaid case and submit a receipt thereof in the trial court.
In case, the petitioners fail to comply this order, the sentence passed by the learned appellate court will revive.
If the amount of fine is realized, it will be payable to the complainant/opposite party no.2.
With this modification in the sentence, this application is dismissed.