IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.814 of 2009 RAMDARAS SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 13.5.2009 Heard. All the four petitioners are convicted under section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months. One Janki Kuer lodged an F.I.R. alleging that the accused persons had greedy eye over her property. On 11.2.2003 all the accused persons came to her house knocked the door when a protest was made appellant Ajit Singh assaulted with rod causing injury on wrist of right hand. Similarly other accused also assaulted. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that both the courts had convicted the petitioners under section 323 of I.P.C. only. He further submits that the doctor has not been examined in this case and as such injuries on the person of the Manju Devi and the informant, Janki Kuer is not proved. He submits that the prosecution side and the defence side are own agnates. It is further claimed that the informant is the wife of petitioner no.1 and the other injured Manju Devi is his daughter. The defence examined two witnesses in its support, namely, D.W.1, Ghurbharan Singh and D.W.2, Dharmraj Singh. Both have supported the defence version and stated that civil suit is also pending between the parties. The appellate court after considering the evidence held 2 that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 448 of I.P.C. Though the doctor has not been examined the police has proved its requisitions as Exts.3 and 3/1. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have supported the manner and place of occurrence. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the documents on record this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of both the courts convicting the petitioners under section 323 of the I.P.C. So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that petitioners no.1 to 3 have already remained for more than two months in custody. Further more there is no previous conviction against petitioner no.4. It also appears that T.S. has been going on between the parties. In the aforesaid circumstance the period already undergone will serve the necessary sentence. Consequently the revision application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. The petitioners are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)