Ram Kishun Sah & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 November, 2011

0
73
Patna High Court
Ram Kishun Sah & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 November, 2011
Author: Gopal Prasad
                                    Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 301 of 1999
                                                    ~~~~~~
              Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.1999
              respectively passed by Shri Gangadhar, learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions
              Case No. 67 of 1992.
                                                   ~~~~~~
              1. Ram Kishun Sah, S/o. Anandi Sah.
              2. Bhubneshwar Sah.
              3. Deo Narayan Sah.
                      Both appellant No. 2 and 3 sons of Late Tilak Sah, resident of village -
                      Bishunpur, P.O. and P.S. Sonebersa Kutchery, District - Saharsa.
                                                                             .... .... Appellants.
                                                    Versus
              1. The State Of Bihar.
              2. Hari Lal Sah, S/O Late Ram Charitar Sah, resident of village - Bishunpur, P.O.
                  and P. S. - Sonebersa - Kutchery, District - Saharsa.
                                                                            .... .... Respondents.

~~~~~~
Appearance :

For the Appellants : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Nikunj Shekhar, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

~~~~~~
PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD

GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the

State.

2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that while the complainant was returning after

purchase of fertilizer from the money he got as pension to the tune of Rs.6,000/- he was

intercepted and snatched the money and assaulted. However, a case was lodged under

Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and during the trial the charge was framed

but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 379

and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court convicted the appellants for the

offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the benefit of Section
2

360 Cr. P. C. has not been provided though the appellants have been acquitted under

Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted for the offence under Section

323 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances that the occurrence is of the

year 1990 as the appellants have not been acquitted for the offence under 379 and 307 of

the Indian Penal Code and have only been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal

Code. hence, he has suffered due to the protracted litigation and hence under the facts and

circumstances, the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act be provided and the appellants are acquitted on due admonition. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.

(Gopal Prasad, J.)

Patna High Court, Patna.

Dated, 15th November, 2011.

Kundan/N.A.F.R.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *