IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2010 JAFAR YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.10.2010 This appeal was heard at the stage of admission. The appellants were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 342, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code but on conclusion of the trial the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 6.8.2010 found the offence under Section 307 not proved and only the charge under Sections 324, 379 and 342 was found established and hence the appellants were found guilty and they were convicted accordingly. As to the quantum of sentence, considering the nature of offence the learned trial court did not pass the sentence of substantive imprisonment and the appellants were released on admonition under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution story was that one boy Pradip Kumar Yadav was going to purchase tea leaf and when he reached near the house of appellant Jafar Yadav, all the appellants captured him and took him inside the house and started beating him. On hearing cry of the boy Pradip Kumar, the informant and his wife Chandawati Devi went there and asked the appellants to leave the boy but nobody responded and they continued beating. It was further alleged that the appellant Jafar Yadav dealt a Tangi blow upon which Chandawati Devi tried to save her and in that course, it touched her nose and caused bleeding injury. It was also alleged that accused Savitri Devi took out gold ear ring worth Rs. 3000/- from the neck of Chandawati Devi. The cause of occurrence was stated to be that some days ago, the grand son of the informant, the husband of the Chandawati Devi and the grand daughter 2 of the appellant Jafar Yadav had a quarrel and that due to this anguish the appellant had captured the boy Pradip Kumar Yadav and had given him a beating and that when Chandawati Devi tried to save the boy injury was caused to her by Tangi and her gold chain was snatched. Including informant as many as four witnesses were examined by prosecution. The P.W.1 was the boy Pradip Kumar Yadav who stated about the occurrence. The P.W.2 was Chandawati Devi the wife of the informant Kishori Yadav. The P.W. 3 Kishori Yadav was informant himself and P.W. 4 was a formal witness who proved the written application filed before the police. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case the doctor and I.O. were not examined. But on perusal of the judgment it is found that the learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the three witnesses in detail and considering the evidence as discussed, I find that the learned trial court has based his conviction on well considered material. While passing quantum of sentence also, the learned trial court also taken a pragmatic approach in view of the facts that it was a case of quarrel taking place due to the grudge resulting from the quarrel between the two children of both sides. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the judgment of the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court is based on well considered materials and hence the same is sustained. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-