Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.328 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21ST AUGUST, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI SHRI PRAKASH RAI, 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DARBHANGA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 117 OF 1996 ARISING OUT OF SINGWARA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 116 OF 1994 =========================================================== 1. LAXMI SAH, SON OF MATRU SAH 2. YOGI SAH, SON OF MATRU SAH 3. HARI SAH, SON OF MATRU SAH 4. RAM CHANDRA SAH, SON OF MATRU SAH 5. MATRU SAH, SON OF MUSAI SAH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BARWARE, AT PRESENT NASIRGANJ NISTA, POLICE STATION SINGAWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. VISHWANATH PD. SINHA, SR. ADV. MR. DURGESH KUMAR SINGH, ADV. MR. RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. PRABHASH RANJAN THAKUR, ADV. MR. NITIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-10-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants produced the death certificate of Matru Sah, which indicates that he died on 29.02.2004. The Trial Court will confirm this fact and if it is found to be true, then this appeal will abate against him. If this fact is not found to be true, then the appeal of Matru Sah will be governed by the judgment and order passed by this Court in this appeal. 2. The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.328 of 2000 dt.18-10-2012 2 / 5 2 has found the appellants guilty in this case and has convicted them as follows: Laxmi Sah, Yogi Sah, Hari Sah and Matru Sah were convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Ram Chandra Sah has been convicted under [STATUTE] as well as under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each counts. He has also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this case, the formal First Information Report as well as the LTI of the informant has not been proved and marked as exhibits. 3. It is alleged by the informant Kishori Paswan that he went to the shop of Ram Chandra Sah to drink a cup of tea. Ram Chandra Sah asked him to pay Rs. 150/- which Kishori Paswan owed to him. The informant refused to pay the money and went home without drinking a cup of tea. The allegation is that the appellants came to his house and Ram Chandra Sah assaulted him with a farsa, whereas the other appellants have assaulted him with lathies. It is also alleged that they forcibly took his thumb impression on a blank paper. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.328 of 2000 dt.18-10-2012 3 / 5 3 informant alleges that the appellants, especially, the appellant no. 4 abused him. On raising alarm, one Ghoghan Das and Fuleshwar Das came to the place of occurrence to save him. 4. The defence of the appellants is that the case is completely false, no such occurrence took place, the injury report is manufactured one and that the entire case has been instituted at the instance of one Atik Ahmad, who wanted to buy the lands of the appellant Ram Chandra Sah. 5. PW 1 Ghoghan Khatwe and PW 2 Ram Chandra Yadav have not been named as witnesses to the occurrence in the First Information Report. The evidence of PW 1 would disclose that he has come for the first time before the Trial Court to depose as he was not examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation. He further disclosed that he came to the place of occurrence after it was over and did not see the actual assault. On the other hand, PW 2 has deposed that he learnt about the occurrence when he returned home in the evening after completing his work. It is thus apparent that these witnesses cannot be relied upon for the purpose of substantiating the prosecution case as they are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence and have come for the first time in Court to depose in favour of the informant. 6. The Court is thus left with the evidence of PW 3, the informant Kishori Paswan. According to the informant, he was assaulted on the head by a farsa by Ram Chandra Sah. He Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.328 of 2000 dt.18-10-2012 4 / 5 4 also alleges that he was given 6-8 lathis blows by the other co-accused persons. He accepts the fact that although his thumb impression was taken on a piece of paper, it was never used for any purpose by the appellants. He denies the fact that he is the servant or bataidar of Atik Ahmand and tht Atik wanted to buy 3 katha of land belonging to the appellants. 7. The sole evidence of PW 3 has to be examined with great care. It is obvious from the evidence of the doctor who has been examined as a Court witness that the manner of inflicting injury is not supported by the doctor. According to the doctor, CW 1, PW 3 had an incised would on the right side of the parietal region, which was 1.5” x ½” x ½”. He also received a bruise on right side of the back which is said to be 1/5” x 1/6” x 1/7”. The injuries have been described as simple in nature. In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that the injuries could be sustained by falling or they can also be manufactured as they are superficial in nature. One fact is obvious, that the informant is trying to exaggerate the manner in which the occurrence took place. His neighbours etc. who had seen the occurrence, are not ready to support

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.