Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.151 OF 1999 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DTED 24TH JUNE, 1999 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25TH JUNE, 1999 PASSED BY SHRI AMITABH KUMAR, 5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GAYA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 209 OF 1997/442 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT CASE NO. 600 OF 1994) =========================================================== 1. NARESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH 2. UMESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH 3. JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH 4. VINAY PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NARESH SINGH 5. CHUNNU PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NARESH SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJUR, POLICE STATION ATARI, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. YADUNANDAN SHARMA, SON OF LATE BALDEO SINGH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KAJUR, POLICE STATION ATARI, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. AKHILESHWAR PD. SINGH, SR. ADV. MR. AJAY KR. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-09-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. As per the report dated 02.07.2012 of the Superintendent of Police, Gaya, the appellant no. 1, namely, Naresh Prasad Singh has died during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands abated against appellant no. 1 Naresh Prasad Singh. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.151 of 1999 dt.10-09-2012 2 / 8 2 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1997/442 of 1995, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellants 2 and 5, namely, Umesh Prasad Singh and Chunnu Prasd Singh are also convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; whereas the appellants 3 and 4, namely, Janardhan Prasad Singh and Vijay Prasad Singh are convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. A complaint case was filed by Yadunandan Sharma in which he has alleged that on 17.08.1994, while he was returning home, he was waylaid by the appellants, who assaulted him and also snatched away Rs, 3,000/- from his pocket. The said money was part of the payment that the complainant had received on account of sale of a land. It has also being stated in the complaint petition that the complainant lives in village Kajur in his In-laws house. His wife Urmila Devi and son Krishna Kumar Singh were gifted 12 bighas of land in village Kajur and 20 bighas of land in village Rengna, which he had sold. It is also alleged that the appellants were armed with pistol and snatched away his money and assaulted him. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.151 of 1999 dt.10-09-2012 3 / 8 3 complainant thereafter filed a complaint case on the next day of the occurrence in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. 4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two witnesses have been mentioned in the complaint petition i.e. Shivdani Singh and Shaligram Pandey, however no role whatsoever has been assigned to these witnesses in the body of the complaint petition, nor, has the complainant explained as to how these two persons came to be present at the place of occurrence. 5. Three witnesses including the complainant have been examined in this case with respect to the manner of the occurrence. PW 4 Arjun Prasad Sinha has been examined to prove the complaint petition as well as the vakalatnama attached with the complaint petition. PW 1 Shivdani Singh claims that he reached the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of raised voices and saw the appellants assaulting the complainant and this witness also supports the case of snatching Rs. 3,000/-. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the reason for the occurrence is that there is dispute with respect to lands. There are other cases pending between the parties with respect to certain pieces of lands. There is also a case in which the informant had mortgaged his land to Naresh Prasad Singh (now deceased) as he required Rs. 40,000/-. This witness has also stated that Naresh Prasad Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.151 of 1999 dt.10-09-2012 4 / 8 4 Singh, the appellant, is the father-in-law (chachia sasur) of the informant. It has been stated that Govind Narayan Singh is the father-in-law, and Yadunandan Singh and Naresh Prasad Singh are his brothers. According to this witness, Shaligram Pandey (PW 2) and this witness helped the complainant and took him home as he was badly injured due to the assault by the appellants. 6. This Court finds that the evidence of PW 1 cannot be believed for the reason that he has come for the first time in Court to state that he had seen the occurrence and that he had helped the complainant by carrying him to his home. In the complaint petition, no such case has been made out by the complainant. It would also appear from the evidence of PW 1 that both parties are litigating with each other with respect to the lands and money, both. PW 1 has stated nothing regarding the genesis of the occurrence, rather his evidence leads this Court to the conclusion that the complaint case has been filed because of the land dispute. 7. The next witness is Shaligram Pandey, PW 2, who happens to be the Yajman (;teku) by profession. According to this witness, the occurrence took place on 14.06.1998, which is in direct contradiction to the statement given by the complainant as well as PW 1. A suggestion was given to this witness that the complainant had gifted (nku) a a piece of land to PW 2,

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.