Parichhan Rai Ors. vs State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19-8-2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge IIIrd, Sitamarhi in Session Trial No. 346/06/28/98. The revisionists were convicted for the offence under Sections 324,147, 148, IPC and they were directed to furnish security bond for Rs. 5,000/- for maintaining peace and to be of good behaviour for one year.

Revisionist lawyer submitted that the complainant and the revisionist all had purchased some plots from the same vendor. There is also a counter case. So, order of conviction may be set aside.

However, I find that the trial Court came to the conclusion that the revisionist had committed the offence under Sections 324, 323,147, IPC. The very fact that there is counter case, indicates that there was the same time of the occurrence on the alleged date or on the alleged time. Initially, revisionists were prosecuted u/s 307, IPC and the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, convicted them only u/s 324, IPC and some ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code simply because there was counter case.

I do not think the order of conviction suffers from any irregularity or illegality. The trial Court was rather lenient in sparing the revisionist from any punishment and it directed them to furnish bond. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the Court below. Hence, this revision is dismissed.