AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mandhata Singh, J.—Fardbeyan of one Ishwar Dayal Singh (P.W.7) has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in brief, is that on 5.3.1998 at about 4.30 PM accused persons including appellants were quarreling with Mangal Singh P.W.2 during Cricket game. On alarm informant P.W.7 went there and persuaded for not quarreling. In the meantime deceased Bhageshwar Singh came at the place of occurrence. He also persuaded to not quarrel. Then appellant Nagendra Singh of Criminal Appeal no. 292 of 1999 came and scuffled with Bhageshwar Singh and Vishnu Singh, accused appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1999 blew his bat of Cricket on his head. He fell down, became unconscious, thereupon accused appellant no. 2 Hari Shankar Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1999 also came and blew his bat of Cricket on the head of Bhageshwar Singh. There was rumour about death of Bhageshwar Singh, thereupon all the accused appellants rushed to their house. Victim Bhageshwar Singh was taken to Sadar Hospital, from where referred to P.M.C.H., Patna and in course of treatment he died.
Statement/Fardbeyan of informant was recorded by Police Official of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna.
The trial is ended in conviction and sentence to the accused appellants for the offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no mention of Part I or Part II but part II is shown applicable in the case.
For appellants Vishnu Shankar Singh and Hari Shankar Singh of Criminal Appeal no.291 of 1999 it is said that both have been alleged for causing injury one each but a single injury is found on the head of deceased and appellant Nagendra Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1999 is non-assailant. There is no mention about meeting of mind but conviction is there. For appellants Vishnu Shankar Singh and Hari Shankar Singh, it is also submitted that they had no intention to kill the deceased rather causing of assault certainly they were intending, further according to their learned counsel it is apparent that there was no repetition of blow on behalf of any of them and parties have compromised the case to which effect a compromise petition dated 9.4.2012 is being filed today in Court during course of argument, a copy of which has already been served on learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Compromise petition is kept on record.
By referring the above discussed circumstance it is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for appellants that all the appellants are entitled for liberal view on the point of sentence with further specification that appellants Vishnu Shaknar Singh and Hari Shankar Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1999 remained in custody for a period of near about two years in course of trial and after conviction, appellant Nagendra Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1999 remained in custody for a period of about 36 days, so, that period can be observed sufficient towards their sentence for which I am also convinced.
In result, these appeals are dismissed after modifying the sentence, conviction is affirmed/maintained and sentence is modified and minimised to the period already undergone by them (accused appellants). Appellants are on bail, so, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Let a copy of judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.