Bacha Rai @ Merha Rai, Bhagirath Rai and Ram Ashray Sah vs The State of Bihar

S.K. Katriar, J.—This Criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 4.12.1993, passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Criminal Appeal no. 39/26 of 1989/91 (Bacha Rai and others vs. State of Bihar), affirming in full the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sikrahna at Motihari, in Trial No. 110/89 / G.R. No.749/74, (State of Bihar vs. Bacha Rai @ Merha Rai and Ors.) by judgment dated 31.3.89. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the three accused-petitioners are guilty of offence u/s 380 IPC and have sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs. 100/- each. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.11.74 at 1 a.m. The informant woke up on hearing the sound of ''Kharkharahat''. He woke Gajanand Sah, Maheshwar Tewari, Ram Deyal Mahto and saw the petitioners fleeing away with paddy on head. The petitioners subsequently threw away paddy and hid themselves but were caught hold of. In the morning along with the Choukidar the petitioners were taken to Adapur police station where an FIR was registered at 1 p.m. on 9.11.74 under sections 380, 411 and 457 IPC. After investigation the petitioners were chargesheeted. They were however, tried under Sections 380 and 457 IPC. The trial court by its judgment dated 21.3.89 convicted the three petitioners herein u/s 380 IPC and sentenced them as stated above. They have, however, been acquitted of the charge u/s 457 IPC. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the present criminal revision application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment of the court of appeal below is purfunctory and almost amounts to non-application of the mind. It has not properly discussed the evidence and affirmed the judgment of the trial court mechanically. He has also submitted that neither the informant nor the I.O. have been examined in support of the prosecution case. He lastly submitted that in view of the nature of the offence, the period already undergone by the petitioners would suffice. Petitioner no. 1 has already remained in custody for 59 days, and petitioners nos. 2 and 3 have been in custody for 49 days each.

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the State submits in support of the impugned judgment that it were the petitioners who were to be blamed for the kind of judgment handed down by the appellate court. They were very negligent before the appellate court and did not appear on a number of dates including the date on which it was heard. He also submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioners is on the lighter side inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed u/s. 380 IPC is 7 years.

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this revision application has to be dismissed on merits, and the conviction u/s. 380 IPC has to be up-held. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners are guilty of the offence u/s. 380 IPC. It is concluded by findings of facts. In such circumstances, the conviction recorded by the courts below u/s. 380 IPC is maintained.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that in view of conviction and the nature of the offence, the period already undergone by the petitioners will meet the ends of justice. Petitioner no. 1 has so far remained in custody for 59 days, and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have been in custody for 49 days each. I am, therefore, of the view that this revision application should be allowed on the question of sentence and the period already undergone by the petitioners should be treated to be adequate sentence and will meet the ends of justice. In the result, this criminal revision application is allowed in part. The conviction recorded by the court below u/s. 380 IPC against the three petitioners is maintained. It is, however, allowed on the question of sentence, and the period already undergone by the petitioners is the punishment awarded to the petitioners. The petitioners are discharged from their bail bonds.