Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.434 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13.12.2000, PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SAMASTIPUR, IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 43 OF 1997. =========================================================== 1. Ram Uchit Singh, Son of Late Ram Swarup Singh. 2. Parmeshwar Singh, Son of Late Ram Swarup Singh. 3. Jyoti Singh, Son of Ram Uchit Singh. 4. Yogendra Singh, Son of Parmeshwar Singh. All are resident of Village Nagirpur, P.S. Ujjiarpur, District Samastipur. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate Smt. Bela Singh, Advocate For the State : Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-08-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Learned counsel for the appellants informs this Court that Parmeshwar Singh, appellant no. 2 has passed away during pendency of this appeal. However, no application has been filed, regarding this aspect. This fact would need to be ascertained by the Trial Court and if, it is found that it is true, the appeal against him shall stand abated, if not he will be covered by the judgment and order in this case. 2. The appellants have been held guilty for offences under [STATUTE] and convicted to undergo R.I. for six months for each of the offences, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.434 of 2000 dt.31-08-2012 2 / 6 2 by the Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1997. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case was instituted by Sukhdeo Mahto on 29.7.1996 alleging that two days prior to the occurrence Ram Uchit Singh had cut bamboo trees which were hanging in the portion of land belonging to the accused. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 27.7.1996 the appellants began to cut the bamboos etc. belonging to the informant. It is said that the Mukhiya came to the spot and protested. In the meantime, it is alleged that the appellants armed with Lathi and Mungra (a long wooden rod/stick with flat base used for the purpose of pounding gram) assaulted the informant on the head and other parts of the body. His son Arjun Singh and Rajendra Singh also received injuries inflicted by the appellants. It is said that when his wife Rampari Devi came to intervene, she too was assaulted as a result of which she fractured her hand. 4. A counter case has been filed by appellant Parmeshwar Singh in which he alleges that Rajendra Singh and Sukhdeo Mahto pulled the appellant Parmeshwar with a Gamchha and Sukhdeo Mahto assaulted him with a brick on the head. Jyoti Kumar was also assaulted by Rajendra Singh with a brick. According to the First Information Report lodged by Parmeshwar Singh the appellants were the persons who were cutting the bamboo trees belonging to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.434 of 2000 dt.31-08-2012 3 / 6 3 Parmeshwar Singh. The counter case is marked as exhibit 4 and has been proved by defence witness. 5. The doctor has been examined in this case and he supports the manner of assault by medical evidence. Thus the Ocular evidence led regarding the manner of infliction of the injury is supported by medical evidence. Four persons have been injured, out of which Rampari Devi is said to have received a grievous injury, as her hand was fractured. 6. It has been argued, which appears to be a correct submission, that a compromise petition was filed both in the present case i.e. Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 112 of 1996 as well as Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 1996. The trial of Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 1996 commenced earlier to the present case. All the witnesses have turned hostile and the accused of Ujjiarpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 1996 were acquitted. 7. In this context, I would directly refer to paragraph 6 of the evidence of P.W. 2. He has stated as follows: “ ” Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.434 of 2000 dt.31-08-2012 4 / 6 4 In the light of the above evidence, it is obvious that both the parties had compromised the case and it was only later that the informant of this case had changed his mind and decided to pursue the matter. 8. P.W. 1 is a formal witness who has proved the signature of the Officer Incharge on the First Information Report. P.W. 2 is the son of the informant. He was injured during the occurrence and he supported the case regarding the manner of assault. Paragraph 6 of his evidence has already been quoted. According to this witness the trees that were severed from the ground, were seized by the Investigating Officer, whereas the Investigating Officer in his evidence has said that he had not seized any of the trees. P.W. 3 Rampari Devi supports the prosecution version. In her evidence and cross-examination she has also supported the genesis of the occurrence and has stated that she was assaulted by the appellants. P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh also the son of Sukhdeo Mahto and injured in this occurrence has supported the prosecution version and has stated that he was given a blow on his head and other parts of the body. At paragraph 5 this witness states that the Mukhiya had told his father to take the bamboos which have been cut by the appellants. According to P.W. 4, this witness along with others had received their bamboo trees. It also appears from the evidence of this witness that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.434 of 2000 dt.31-08-2012 5 / 6 5 appellants and the informant have earlier indulged in a fight and as such the relationship between the two parties became strained. The informant has been examined as P.W. 6. He supports the case as made by him in the First Information Report. He supports the injury received by him, his sons and wife. There is nothing in his evidence which woul

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.