Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.422 of 2000 =========================================================== Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2000 passed by Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.738 of 1992. =========================================================== 1. Ram Chandar Singh, son of Yamuna Singh. 2. Baiju Singh. 3. Babloo Kumar alias Padri Singh. Both sons of Ram Chandar Singh. Resident of village-Pandarakh, Police Station-Pandarakh, District-Patna. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : M/s. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Ravi Ranjan, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-12-2012: ------------- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2000 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.738 of 1992, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, held the accused-appellants guilty for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, whereas the accused-appellant no.2, Baiju Singh, has been acquitted from the charge under [STATUTE] . 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that Kamleshwari Prasad Sharma (P.W.3) gave his fardbeyan at the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.422 of 2000 dt.14-12-2012 2 / 12 2 (P.W.4) on 8.11.1990 at about 8.45 P.M. to the Sub Inspector of Police, R. Ranjan of Pandark Police Station to the effect that he has a medicine shop in the name and style of Punyarak Medicine Corner. On that day, as usual, at about 7.30 P.M. he was just to go after closing the shop and his servant, Gariban Ram (P.W.1) was also present in the shop. The sale proceeds of the medicines was kept in the cash box and he was counting the same which was about 1100/-. In the meantime, his villagers and neighbours, namely, Ram Chandar Singh, son of Late Yamuna, Padri Singh and Baiju Singh, both sons of Ram Chandar Singh came at the shop. Ram Chandar Singh asked him to give Rs.10,000/- which he refused on which Padri Singh, told to shot fire. In the meantime, Baiju Singh entered into his shop and asked him to give the money otherwise till the morning he would shot fire. Thereafter, Ram Chandar Singh and Baiju Singh caught hold of him and Padri Singh gave a farsa blow on his head causing blood oozing injury. Baiju Singh took cash of Rs.1100/- from the cash box and, thereafter, they fled away. On hearing hullah, neighbours rushed there and saw the occurrence. Thereafter, he was taken to the clinic of Dr. Anil Babu, where he was treated. The occurrence has been seen by his servant, Gariban Ram (P.W.1) and his neighbour, Pramod Bharti (P.W.2). 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Kamleshwari Prasad Sharma (P.W.3), Pandarak P.S. Case No.94 of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.422 of 2000 dt.14-12-2012 3 / 12 3 1990 was instituted against the accused-appellants under [STATUTE] on 8.11.1990 and on investigation police submitted the chargesheet under [STATUTE] . After taking the cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial, where charge under [STATUTE] was framed against all the accused-appellants and charge under [STATUTE] was also framed against the accused-appellant no.2, Baiju Singh, and the same were explained to them, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. On consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, while acquitted the accused-appellant no.2, Baiju Singh, for the offence under [STATUTE] but convicted all the accused-appellants for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses, who are P.W.1, Gariban Ram, P.W.2, Pramod Kumar Bharti, P.W.3, Kamleshwari Prasad Sharma, the informant of the case and P.W.4 is Dr. Anil Kumar, who treated the informant, Kamleshwari Prasad Sharma (P.W.3). Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.422 of 2000 dt.14-12-2012 4 / 12 4 On the other hand, the defence has examined one witness Sitaram Prasad, who has formally proved the notice issued by Sarpanch of Gram Kutchery Pandarak on 13.6.1995 to Ram Balak Singh and five others as Exts.A and A/1. The defence, as appears from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that due to dispute regarding the water flow in between the informant and the accused- appellants, the informant has managed to implicate the accused- appellants. 6. P.W.1, Gariban Ram, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place on 8.11.1990 at about 7.30 P.M. At that time, he was outside the medicine shop while his shop owner was in the shop and was counting the money gained by selling the medicines. At that time, he had gone for urinal. He heard hullah and when reached at the shop he saw the accused, Ram Chandar Singh, Padri Singh and Baiju Singh. The accused, Padri Singh, was armed with farsa and was demanding the money from shop owner. When his shop owner refused to give the money then the accused, Ram Chandar Singh and Baiju Singh entered into the shop and the accused, Padri Singh gave a farsa blow at his shop owner, Kamleshwari Prasad Sharma, who fell down. In the meantime, Baiju Singh and Ram Chandar Singh, fl

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.