IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1472 of 2009 Ram Naresh Rai @ Ram Naresh Sharma son of late Jagruk Rai, resident of Village Bidhipur, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K. Kherey, Addl. P.P. --------- 2. 20.10.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barh in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2004, by which the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Barh in Complaint Case No.139(C)/2000 Tr. No.423 of 2004 convicting the petitioner u/ss.323, 504 and 379 I.P.C. and directing him to execute a bond of Rs.3000/- for six months for maintaining peace, has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.4.2000 at about 10 P.M. the petitioner was seen plucking jackfruits from the tree of the complainant and when the complainant raised alarm, the petitioner came down and threatened on the point of pistol to kill him and he took away fifteen jackfruits amounting to Rs.275/-. When the complainant caught hold of the petitioner, he was assaulted with the butt of the pistol. The accused-petitioner also snatched away - 2 - his wrist watch worth Rs.500/-. The complainant was examined on S.A. and after enquiry u/s.202 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken and after issuance of processes the petitioner appeared and claimed to be tried. After the trial the petitioner was convicted under Sections 323, 379 and 504 I.P.C. and was directed to execute a probation bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount for a period of 6 months by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2004. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2004 against that judgment and order. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. It appears that in course of trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of which P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the material witnesses, P.W.3 is the complainant himself and P.W.4 is a formal witness. It further appears that both the courts below have considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment so far the conviction part is concerned. In pursuance to the direction of the learned Trial Court the petitioner has already furnished a surety bond of Rs.3000/- for six months for maintaining peace. The period of the surety bond has also lapsed. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not - 3 - required to furnish any bond further. This petition stands disposed of. Narendra/ ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. )