IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.427 of 2002
(Against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2002 passed by Shri
Ram Prabodh Singh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in
Cr. Appeal No.29 of 2001)
==================================================
Harendra Rai, son of Sudama Rai, resident of village-Godana, P.S.-
Revilganj, District- Saran.
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
State Of Bihar
…. …. Opposite Party
==================================================
=========
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh
: Mr.Harendra Kumar
For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey
==================================================
=========
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision
application against the judgment and order dated
14.02.2002 passed by the learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Saran in Criminal Appeal No.29/2001
by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
20.02.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Chapara in G.R. Case No.1870/1994, Trial No.862 of
2001 has been confirmed and the appeal has been
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.427 of 2002 dt.27-09-2011 2
dismissed.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
26.04.1994, the informant Ram Raj Rai was sitting at
his door. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused were
seen cutting palm trees standing on the land possessed
by the informant. The informant alongwith his son
Jaleshwar Rai went to his aforesaid field and protested.
Thereafter, the co-accused Lagandeo Rai asked to kill
him. His villager Narayan Chaudhary had climbed on
the palm tree to cut palm leaves. As directed by the
accused persons, he got down from the palm tree.
Thereafter, the accused petitioner Harendra Raitaking
fasuli, a sharp cutting weapon from the hand of Narayan
Chaudhary and assaulted the informant on his left elbow
and when his son Jaleshwar Rai made protest, the
petitioner assaulted him on his right palm and right
hand. The father and son sustained bleeding injury.
Hearing Hulla of the informant, Jhakhar @ Jhagur Rai
(P.W.2), Bacha Rai and wife of the informant
Shayampati Devi came there at the place of occurrence
and they found both the accused fleeing away from the
place of occurrence. The villagers brought both the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.427 of 2002 dt.27-09-2011 3
injured at Revilganj Hospital. On the way of Revilganj
hospital, the informant became unconscious. After 4 to 5
days of the occurrence, he regained consciousness and
he found himself admitted in P.M.C.H as indoor patient.
He had also seen his son Jaleshwar Rai admitted in
P.M.C.H. The Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded
at P.M.C.H, Patna and forwarded it to the Officer-in-
charge of Revilganj police station for investigation of
the case. After investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner was
charged under Sections 148 and 326 of the I.P.C. and
other accused were charged under Sections 147 and 326
of the I.P.C. After trial, the petitioner was convicted
under Sections 148 and 326 and the other accused were
found guilty under Section 147 of the I.P.C. After
hearing on the question of sentence, the petitioner was
sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and a find of Rs.1000/-
under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for six months
under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and in default of
payment of fine, to serve 3 months sentence. All the
sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Cr.
Appal No.29/2001 against the aforesaid judgment of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.427 of 2002 dt.27-09-2011 4
conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2001 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chapra. After
hearing, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has been confirmed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that there is no material on the record to show
that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The
petitioner should have been granted the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence has taken
place on 26.04.1994 and almost 17 years have passed.
The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental
agony and the sentence of the petitioner deserves to be
modified. He further submits that the petitioner has also
remained in custody for about 2 months.
The learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner has injured the informant and his son by a
sharp cutting weapon and both of them had got their
treatment in the P.M.C.H, Patna. Since the injury was
grievous in nature, as such, the petitioner is not entitled
to get the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the
Probation of Offenders Act. However, she has fairly
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.427 of 2002 dt.27-09-2011 5
submitted that the sentence may be reduced.
After hearing the learned counsels for both the
parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it
appears that the petitioner has been convicted and
sentenced by the learned trial court, which has been
upheld by the learned appellate court. There is no
material on the record to show that the petitioner has
any criminal antecedent. It appears from the record that
the petitioner and his son had been in P.M.C.H, Patna
for their treatment and must have spent money in their
treatment. The accused petitioner has been suffering
from mental agony for more than 17 years and has also
served the sentence for about two months.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my
opinion, it is fit case in which the sentence of the
petitioner should be modified. The sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in
custody and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, which will be
deposited in the trial court within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
failing which, the sentence of the petitioner as imposed
by the learned trial court will revive and the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.427 of 2002 dt.27-09-2011 6
will be taken into custody by the learned trial court to
serve out the remaining period of sentence of
imprisonment. If the fine is realized, it will be payable
to the informant and his son in equal share as they have
suffered injuries due to occurrence. In case the
informant is dead, the amount payable to the informant
will be given to his wife.
With this modification in the sentence, this
petition is dismissed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 27th September, 2011
NAFR/V.K. Pandey
