Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 82 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 16.04.1996 passed by Sri M.M. Chaudhary, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 132/1988/222/94. ************ 1. Shambhu Nath Mishra, S/o Late Rudal Mishra, resident of Village-Kora-Bhadauli, P.S.-Singh-Wara, District-Darbhanga. 2. Raghab Kumar Tiwari, S/o Jwala Tiwari. 3. Shailendra Tiwari, S/o Ramsewak Tiwari, respondent No. 2 and 3 are resident of Village-Sagarpur, P.S.-Sakri, District- Madhubani. 4. Chandra Bhushan Thakur, S/o Radha Prasad Thakur, resident of Village- Brahmottra, P.S.-Sakri, District- Madhubani. 5. Sudhir Prasad Tiwari, S/o Late Umesh Tiwari, resident of Village-Sagarpur, P.S.- Sakri, District-Madhubani. 6. Upendra Rai, S/o Late Kallar Rai, resident of Village-Dahibhatt-Madhopur Tola- Hanuman Nagar, District-Madhubani. ……(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Kedar Pd. Thakur, S/o Mahanand Thakur, resident of Village-Madhopur Tola-Hanuman Nagar, P.O. +P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani. -------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Adv. For the Informant: Mr. Bimal Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. : Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363, 451 and 323 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years, three months and six months respectively by 2 the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 132/1988/222/94 by a judgment dated 16.04.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.1987 at about 11.30 P.M. while the informant Kedar Prasad Thakur, P.W. 6 was in his Baithka all the accused persons came to his house and asked him to accompany them to a panchaiyati in connection with an incident in which his mother had allegedly assaulted appellant Upendra Rai. When the informant refused to go with them and protested that he would verify this fact the accused variously assaulting him took him to the house of Upendra Rai and compelled him to execute a bond on their coercion acknowledging his guilt. In the meanwhile, the local police came there and rescued Upendra Rai. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 6, Kedar Prasad Thakur is the alleged victim of the occurrence. He stated that while he along with his wife were sitting in the Baithaka the accused persons came there and accosted him about the occurrence of abuse by his mother. Appellant, Upendra Rai took him to his house and made him sign an acknowledgement of his guilt. P.W. 5 in her evidence has supported this fact as also P.W. 1 who was present at the place of occurrence. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor have not been examined and, 3 therefore, the nature of injuries sustained by the informant is not known. However, the three witnesses have supported the fact that the P.W. 6 had been dragged and confined in the house of Upendra Rai and made to execute a bond acknowledging his guilt 4. On a consideration of the facts of the case, in my opinion, no offence under Section 363 IPC would be made out and, therefore, the appellants are acquitted of the charges. However, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC as well as 323 IPC but in the interest of justice the period already undergone shall be sufficient sentence. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 1st July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-