Ram Nath Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant No. 4 has been convicted u/s 436 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years whereas Appellant No. 1 has been convicted u/s 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and the Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 have been convicted u/s 147 and 323 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment but Appellant No. 6 has been released on probation whereas the Appellant Nos. 1,4,14 and 16 have been convicted u/s 148 and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali, at Hajipur by a judgment dated 7.7.1994 in Sessions Trial Case No. 9/88/34/90.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons came upon the fields of the informant Sheo Balak Singh P.W.7 and on a trifling matter entered into an altercation with him and assaulted him and subsequently it is stated that the Appellant No. 6 set fire in the dwelling house of the informant.

The prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 is a co-villager of informant whereas P.W. 2,4,5 and 7 are material witnesses and relatives among themselves and P.W.3 is an eyewitness from adjoining villager, P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case.

It has been submitted that on behalf of the Appellants that the evidence of Investigating Officer is important which would dislodge the conviction of the Appellants u/s 436 I.P.C. since he had found that the hut which had been burnt was in fact a plain which was being used for keeping odd items whereas the house of the informant was 10 yards away.

The submission is that under the circumstances, it would not a case of 436 I.P.C. On going through the objective evidence I am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellants and, therefore, the conviction of the Appellant No. 4 is hereby converted to one u/s 435 I.P.C.

However, on going through the evidence of the material witnesses who were injured i.e. P.W. 4,5,7, I find that they have fully supported the case of the accused having assaulted the injured persons and are completely reliable even though there were minor in discrepancies in their evidence.

In view of such, the appeal is dismissed but the sentence is modified to a period already undergone by the Appellants.

The appeal is dismissed.