Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Chandra Dubey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 August, 2012
Author: Shyam Kishore Sharma
Bench: Shyam Kishore Sharma, Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.768 of 2012
======================================================
Ram Chandra Dubey S/O Late Gauri Shankar Dubey R/O Village -
Sapnautiya, P.S. Sonhan, District - Kaimur At Bhabhua
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Subhash Ram S/O Ram Surat Ram.
3. Sheo Muni Ram S/O Ram Surat Ram.
4. Ram Lal Ram S/O Late Ram Das Ram.
5. Mutur Ram S/O Late Ram Das Ram.
6. Moti Lal Ram S/O Late Dasain Ram.
7. Parayan Ram S/O Mutur Ram.
8. Sheo Bilas Bind S/O Ram Janam Bind.
2 to 8 are residents of Village - Sapnautiya, P.S. Sonhan, District - Kaimur
At Bhabhua
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mattoob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)
3 13-08-2012The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.6.212 and 28.6.2012 respectively passed by Sri Harindra Nath, Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2010/61 of 2010 whereby the accused persons, namely, opposite party no. 2 to 8 have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302/149 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.768 of 2012 (3) dt.13-08-2012 2 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused persons should have been hanged and the trial court has sentenced them leniently.
The trial court has discussed the evidence but it has not noted the argument of the defence that no one independent witness was present when the occurrence was in open field. We see no merit in this appeal which is held to be without merit. Distinction between the offence from general class to rare of rarest class has been discussed in several cases and this case does not come within the purview of the case in which this classification should have been made that the offence made out in this case shall be covered under the category of rare of rarest case.
Considering this, the appeal being without merit, is accordingly, dismissed.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J)
Kanchan/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)