Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.287 of 1999 =========================================================== 1.Jeetan Mahaton son of Bhangi Mahton 2.Rama Mahton 3.Subal Mahton @ Subhash Mahton Both sons of Jeetan Mahton, Resident of village- Neemachandpura, P.S.- Neemachandpura , District-Begusarai .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bibhuti Prasad Pandey, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Jagarnath Singh and Mr.P.K.Sinha, Advocates For the State: Mr Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. For the informant : Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.1. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-08-2012 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.9.1999 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.135 of 1996 by which he has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and sentenced the appellant nos.2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years whereas appellant no.1 has been ordered to be released on bond to be executed by him under the provisions of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounting to Rs.2,000/- with one surety to maintain peace for a period of one year. 2. Initially, a written information was submitted by the informant, Rabindra Ram, on 9.3.1983 to the officer incharge Neema Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.287 of 1999 dt.07-08-2012 2. Chandpura Police Station, alleging therein that on 5.3.1983 at 7.30 a.m. when he was going to bring milk for his tea stall, he saw the accused persons erecting structure on his land. The informant, his brother late Ram Nandan Ram, Radhey Ram and Laddu Ram also assembled and they all forbade the accused persons from doing so but they did not hear them. This led to altercation and the accused persons, who were variously armed with Dab and Khanti from before started assaulting them due to which they were badly injured. It has further been alleged that appellant no.3, Subal Mahton @ Subhash Mahton snatched wrist watch of the informant valued at Rs.300/- and appellant no.2, Rama Mahton took out Rs.200/- from his pocket. The informant alleges that the incident of the occurrence was witnessed by Kamleshwari Singh, Khalil Mian, Ram Swaroop Paswan and Ateran Paswan. In the written statement submitted to the police by the informant it has been stated that on 5.3.1983 itself the injured came to the police station but as they were badly injured and nervous on that day, the information could not be given. On the written petition submitted by the informant, Neema Chandpura P.S. Case 0008 of 1983 was registered on 9.3.1983 under [STATUTE] against the appellants and investigation was taken up by the police. 3. While the investigation was going on, the informant, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.287 of 1999 dt.07-08-2012 3. Rabindra Ram, filed a protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 16.7.1984. It was submitted therein that brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Nandan Ram being injured in the incident was shifted to Begusarai hospital in a precarious condition for his treatment but as no proper treatment was accorded to him he was taken to a private doctor. However, his condition deteriorated. From 8.3.1983 to 20.3.1983 he remained under the treatment of Dr.P.R.Mahariya of Begusarai and when there was no sign of improvement he was taken to a private clinic of Dr. R.P.Singh, a bone specialist, on 21.3.1983. From there, he went to Dr. M.N.Rai, who referred him to P.M.C.H., where, he remained hospitalized in emergency ward. There he was treated by Dr. P.K.Sinha and later on was shifted to surgical ward, where, he was examined and operated by Dr. Ramesh Chandra on 1.4.1983. On 21.5.1983 he was discharged and was taken to his village home where he is said to have died on 30.5.1983. It has further been stated in the protest petition that after the death of the deceased, Ram Nandan Ram, his dead body was brought to Neema Chandpura Police Station for sending it for postmortem examination but, the police advised to perform his funeral and, thus, the deceased was cremated under compelling circumstances. 4. From the record it transpires that the investigating officer of the case, after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.287 of 1999 dt.07-08-2012 4. sheet in the case on 9.6.1983 under sections 324 and 379 of the Code against the accused persons named in the first information report. 5. The informant, who had already filed a protest petition in course of investigation, raised objection to the charge-sheet submitted by the police before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was contended that, as the injured Ram Nandan Ram died due to the injury sustained in the occurrence, a further charge under section 302 of the Code was attracted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the informant of the case, rejected the charge-sheet submitted by the police by his order dated 4.4.1985 and directed the protest petition to be treated as a regular complaint. It also appears from the record that against the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 4.4.1985, the accused persons preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No.85 of 1985. The said revision application was transferred to the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, who vide his order dated 9.3.1987 dismissed the revision application filed on behalf of the appellants. 6. It further appears from the record that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and thereafter while conducting enquiry under

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.