IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.249 of 2007
PRABHU SINGH @ PRABHUNATH SINGH SON OF LATE DEVKI
SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE ARIAN, P.S.- HISUA, DISTRICT- NAWADA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. NAWAL SINGH, SON OF SRI GAYA SINGH
3. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH
4. RAMANUJ KUMAR @ RAMANUJ SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA
RAM SINGH.
5. NEPALI SINGH, SON OF SRI BILAT SINGH
6. BILAT SINGH, SON OF LATE HARBANSH SINGH
7. TUNNI SINGH @ ARBIND KUMAR, S/O- NAWAL SINGH,
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE ARIAN, P.S.- HISUA, DISTRICT-
NAWADA.
For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
-----------
9 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the
opposite parties in spite of valid service of notice.
Petitioner, who is the informant of the case, which
gave rise to Sessions Case no. 01/94/95/03 of the Court of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V Nawada is aggrieved by
that part of the judgment whereby learned Trial Court after having
found that the accuseds were guilty of having committed offence
punishable under Sections 324, 149 and 341 of Indian Penal
Code, released them in terms of the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act.
It appears that no substantive punishment was
awarded. It is contended that the accused assaulted the
informant (P.W. 2) and his cousin P.W. 1) by means of sharp
cutting weapons. This was followed by assault by all the accused
persons by means of their respective weapons. This occurrence
2
had taken place on the goshala where the informant and his
cousin (P.Ws. 2 and 1 respectively) were present from before.
Referring to paragraph 9 of the order, it is submitted that some of
the injuries sustained by them were on vital parts of body. It
appears that the doctor found as many as 03 injuries on the
person of P.W. 1. Similarly, 04 injuries were found on the person
of the informant (P.W. 2).
Learned counsel submits that the manner in which the
informant (P.W. 2) and his cousin brother (P.W. 1) were
assaulted at the hands of the accused persons, the placement
and the nature of injuries sustained by them, learned trial court
ought to have awarded substantive punishment even though it is
found that they were the first convicts.
This Court on going through the judgment impugned
finds some substance in the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner. True it is that the Court has to act in its own
discretion in the matter of awarding appropriate punishment for
the charges proved at the trial but the learned court has to keep
in focus the fall out of the order letting off the accused on
execution of bonds without awarding substantive punishment. All
these factors have to be borne in mind by learned trial court while
awarding sentence in terms of provisions of the Code. In my
view, it would be appropriate, if trial court gives a fresh look on
these issue(s).
This Court without expressing any view on the issue
3
remands the matter back to learned trial court for its fresh
consideration in so far as awarding of sentence is concerned.
Paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 20.11.2006 is, hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
learned trial court for reconsideration and passing fresh order in
accordance with law.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj