Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1030 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 1592 of 2012 And Interlocutory Application No. 1593 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Dev Kant Singh 2. Uma Kanth Singh, both sons of late Ram Roop Prasad Singh, resident of Village Mohammad Pirauli, Tola Gadhia, P.S. Pusa, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Hari Shankar Mahto, son of Sri Prabhu Mahto, resident of Vilalge Gadhia ( Bishanpur Birauli) P.S. Pusa,District Samastipur .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. M. N.Jha, Addl.P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Krishn Nandan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA C.A.V. ORDER 7 17-10-2012 The petitioners, who are full brothers, besides 5 others, were put on trial in connection with G.R.No. 974 of 1996/Tr. No. 415 of 2003 with respect to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 7.7.1996 at 7 A.M. in the morning. The opposite party no.2 Hari Shankar Mahto lodged aforesaid criminal case with respect to the aforesaid occurrence dated 7.7.1996 and claimed that he was assaulted by the accused persons including these two petitioners, as a result of which he had sustained injuries Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1030 of 2008 (7) dt.17-10-2012 2 / 6 2 on his person. On conclusion of trial, by the judgment and order dated 20.2. 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Samastipur, in aforesaid G.R. No. 974 of 1996/ Tr. No. 415 of 2003, the petitioner no.1 Dev Kant Singh was held guilty for charges under [STATUTE] and petitioner no.2 Uma Kant Singh was held guilty for charges under [STATUTE] . However, 5 other co-accused persons were acquitted for the charges framed against them. Petitioner no.2 Uma Kant Singh was also acquitted for charge under [STATUTE] . Accordingly, petitioner no.1 Dev Kant Singh was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for his conviction under Section 341, Simple Imprisonment for six months for his conviction under [STATUTE] . Similarly, petitioner no.2 Uma Kant Singh was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for his conviction under [STATUTE] . The sentences passed against the petitioners were directed to run concurrently. 2. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2003, which has finally been dismissed with certain observations and modifications in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, by the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional sessions Judge, Samastipur. By the impugned judgment, the learned lower appellate court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against petitioner no.1 Dev Kant Singh for offences under sections 504 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1030 of 2008 (7) dt.17-10-2012 3 / 6 3 and 341 of the Indian penal Code. Similarly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against petitioner no.2 for offence under Section 341 of the Indian penal Code has also been set aside. However, conviction under section 323 of the Indian Penal code against petitioner no.1 and conviction under [STATUTE] against petitioner no.2 have been affirmed, but the sentence under [STATUTE] against the petitioner no.1 has been reduced to three months and similarly sentence under [STATUTE] against the petitioner no.2 has been reduced to six months, which are subject matter of challenge in the present revision application. 3. During the pendency of this application, both the petitioners surrendered on 22.9.2008 before the learned trial court for serving out their sentence, but both the petitioners were directed to be released on bail by an order dated 30.9.2008 passed in the present proceeding by a Bench of this Court, and, accordingly, they are enjoying the privilege of bail. 4. During the pendency of the present revision application, the petitioners as also the informant, who is also the victim, have entered into compromise and they have amicably resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. In view of the aforesaid compromise, the petitioners filed I.A.No. 1591 of 2012 with a prayer to implead Hari Shankar Mahto, the informant of the criminal case, who is the person to whom hurt was caused during the aforesaid occurrence dated 7.7.1996, as opposite party no.2. By an order dated 14.9.2012 passed by this Court, aforesaid I.A. No. 1591 of 2012 was allowed, and the informant (victim) was permitted to be impleaded as opposite party no.2 in the main criminal revision application. The informant ( opposite party no.2) has entered appearance through a lawyer by filing a Vakalatnama. 5. In the present proceeding Interlocutory Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1030 of 2008 (7) dt.17-10-2012 4 / 6 4 Application No. 1592 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the informant (opposite party no.2) under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking permission of this Court to compound the case with the petitioners. 6. Interlocutory Application No. 1593 of 2012 has jointly been filed by the petitioners as also the opposite party no.2 under Section 320 Cr.P.C. stating therein that with the intervention

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.