IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.571 of 2002 ================================================== 1. Ramesh Singh. Son of Ram Bahadur Singh. 2. Ravindra Singh, son of Ram Bahadur Singh. 3. Ram Pratap Singh @ Paro Singh, son of late Ambika Singh 4. Shri Ram Singh, son of Ram Pratap Singh. 5. Balmiki Singh, son of Ram Pratap Singh. 6. Ram Saran Singh, son of Ram Pratap Singh. 7. Ram Sumran Singh, son of late Bishundeo Singh @ Biso Singh. 8. Sitaram Singh, son of late Bishundeo Singh @ Biso Singh. 9. Chandradeo Singh, son of late Gaya Singh. 10. Ram Swarath Singh, son of late Gaya Singh. 11. Ram Das Singh, son of late Gaya Singh. 12. Ram Shreshtha Singh, son of late Gaya Singh. 13. Shaligram Singh, son of late Behari Singh. (All are residents of village-Pahsara, P.S.-Naokothi, District- Begusarai) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Jai-Jai Ram Singh, son of Tuntun Singh, resident of village- Pahsara, P.S.-Naokothi, District- Begusarai. ………Opposite Parties. ================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : None For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pramod Manbans, Advocate For the State : Mrs. I.B.Pandey, Addl.P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.571 of 2002 dt.25-10-2011 2 order dated 7.03.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No.63/1994 by which the judgment and order dated 4.08.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in G.R. No.1757/1990, Trial No.442/1994 has been confirmed by which the petitioners were convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them to any punishment, they have been directed to be released on executing probation bond of Rs.3000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.08.1990 at about 5.00 A.M., the informant Jai-Jai Ram Singh (P.W.6) was returning to his house. When he reached near the field of Lakhan Singh, all the accused armed with Lathi making unlawful assembly assaulted him. On raising alarm, his brother Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Raja Ram Singh (P.W.5) came to his rescue; they were also assaulted by the accused. The reason for the occurrence is the land dispute between both the parties. On the fardbeyan of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.571 of 2002 dt.25-10-2011 3 informant, Naokothi P.S. Case No.75/1990 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After the trial, the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them to any punishment, they were directed to be released on furnishing probation bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and a good behaviour for a period of one year and in case any of the accused violates the direction of the court, he would have to appear and receive sentence by the trial court. This order has been passed by the learned trial court on 4.08.1994. Against this order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.53/1994, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners on repeated calls. Mrs. I.B.Pandey, Add.P.P. appears for the State and Mr. Pramod Manbans, Advocate appears for the Opposite Party No.2. They have submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.571 of 2002 dt.25-10-2011 4 considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Both the courts below have found the accused petitioners guilty and no interference is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the opposite parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses, out of them, P.W.2 Shiv Narayan Singh has been tendered, P.W.8 Anandi Mahto is a formal witness, P.W.6 Jai Jai Singh is the informant and P.W.5 Raja Ram Singh is his brother. Both of them have sustained injuries. The other witnesses P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 have seen the occurrence and supported the prosecution case. The doctor has also found injuries on the person of both the victims. The learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and the petitioners have been directed to be released on furnishing probation bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and a good behaviour for a period of one year. The occurrence has taken place on 3.08.1990. There is no material on the record to show that after passing of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.571 of 2002 dt.25-10-2011 5 the impugned judgment and order, the accused petitioners have committed any overt act. More than 17 years have passed after the conviction of the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, there is no necessity of furnishing any probation bond by the petitioners. No coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners for depositing the probation bond, if not furnished. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 25th of October, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)