Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.967 of 2002 In the matter of an application under Sections 379 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. =========================================================== 1. Madan Singh, son of late Lakhan Singh. 2. Jaimal Singh, son of late Lakhan Singh. 3. Madhusudan Singh, son of late Lakhan Singh. 4. Chhako Singh, son of Jaimangal Singh. All are residents of Vill. Nanuari, P.S. Akbarpur, Distt. Nawadah. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Birendra Kumar @ Gorelal Singh, son of Ruplal Singh, resident of Vill. Nanuari, P.S. Akbarpur, Distt. Nawadah. .... .... Opposite Parties with Criminal Revision No. 977 of 2002 In the matter of an application under Sections 379 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. =========================================================== Ramashish Singh, son of late Binda Singh, resident of Vill. Nanuari, P.S. Akbarpur, Distt. Nawadah. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Virendra Kumar @ Gorelal Singh, son of Rup Lal Singh, resident of Vill. Nanuari, P.S. Akbarpur, Distt. Nawadah. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. REV. No. 967 of 2002) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. (In CR. REV. No. 977 of 2002) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh with Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocates For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.967 of 2002 dt.09-02-2012 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. Since in both the cases, the judgment impugned is the same, they are being disposed off by a common order. 3. Both these revision applications are directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 07.08.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 1997, Tr. No. 04 of 1997 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawadah upholding the judgment and sentence dated 08.07.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Complaint Case No. 487 of 1992, T.R. No. 426 of 1997 by which all the five petitioners along with others have been convicted. They were sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment under [STATUTE] , six months simple imprisonment under [STATUTE] and simple Patna High Court CR. REV. No.967 of 2002 dt.09-02-2012 3 imprisonment of one year under [STATUTE] . The petitioners no. 2 and 3 in Cr. Revision No. 967 of 2002 have further been convicted for offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months while petitioner no. 2 in Cr. Revision No. 967 of 2002 has also been convicted under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. One of the accused, namely, Ramrup Singh, who is not before this Court, was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing bond to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year who accordingly complied with the same and thereafter was released. 4. The case was earlier admitted for hearing and the lower court records were called for. The same have since been received and are on record. 5. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was alleged that while he was irrigating his own paddy field on 23.10.1992 at 7:00 a.m., Madan Singh and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.967 of 2002 dt.09-02-2012 4 Jaimal Singh came there and asked the complainant to irrigate their paddy field by diesel engine to which the complainant replied that he will first irrigate his own paddy field and only then any other field would be irrigated. This resulted in altercation between them and thereafter the accused persons gathered there and Ramashish Singh was holding “saif” in his hand and other co-accused were carrying “lathi”. It is submitted that Chhako Singh instigated to kill and to damage the diesel engine whereupon Ramashish Singh assaulted the complainant by means of “saif” inflicting injury on his head and on right leg and when the complainant fell down, Madan Singh assaulted him by lathi. It is the further case of the complainant that when his nephew came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by lathi by Chhako Singh causing injury on the legs and fists. After that, all the accused persons are said to have damaged the diesel engine causing loss of Rs. 2,000/-. On cry being raised, villagers had come and asked the accused persons not to commit mischief and then the accused persons fled away. It is also stated that while fleeing the accused Jaimal Singh committed theft of woolen wrapper. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.967 of 2002 dt.09-02-2012 5 Thereafter the complainant and his nephew are said to have been brought to Nawadah Hospital in injured condition where they were examined by the Doctor. In the said complaint case the petitioners faced trial and were initially convicted and sentenced by the trial court and the said judgment was upheld by the appellate court against which the present Revision Applications have been filed. The appellate court had only modified the judgment and order of the trial court to the extent that the conviction of Jaimal Singh under [STATUTE] was set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is an instance of case and counter case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Jaimal Singh had filed an F.I.R. being Akbarpur P.S. Case 142

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.