Patna High Court
Yugal Prasad & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 23 March, 2018
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.350 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -112 Year- 2006 Thana -KATEYA District- GOPALGANJ
===========================================================
1. Mantu Prasad, son of Murlidhar Prasad
2. Munna Prasad, son of late Gauri Shankar Prasad
3. Sunil Prasad, son of Basudeo Prasad, all resident of Village-Kateya Bazar, P. S.
kateya, District-Gopalganj.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 463 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -112 Year- 2006 Thana -KATEYA District- GOPALGANJ
===========================================================
1. Yugal Prasad, son of Late Gokhula Prasad
2. Mintu Devi, wife of Yugal Prasad, both resident of village- Kateya Bazar, P.S.-
Kateya Bazar, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No.2-Advocate
Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar-Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh-A.P.P.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No.463 of 2015)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar-Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Z. Hoda-A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23-03-2018 Both appeals arise out from common judgment of conviction and sentence on account thereof, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 2
2. Appellants Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad, Sunil Prasad, Yugal Prasad and Mintu Devi have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for ten days, under Section 504 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months, all except Mintu Devi under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three months, additionally, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently while appellant Mintu Devi has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months, under Section 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.282 of 2007/ 230 of 2015.
3. Satyadeo Prasad (PW-6) while was admitted at Referral Hospital, Kateya in an injured condition gave his fard-bayan on 03.08.2006 at about 4.15 p.m. disclosing therein that on the same day at about 3.00 p.m. his own brother Yugal Prasad began to abuse him and his father in a Gali in front of his old house, whereupon he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 3 forbade. Then, he disclosed that Yugal had said that either you will have to pay Rs.2,00,000/- or in an alternative got his house constructed, whereupon he protested and said that when partition has been effected through Court, then in that circumstance, he is not going to oblige. Then, he (Yugal) said that he will get him or his son murdered, whereupon brawl took place and during course thereof, he (Yugal) did not find efficient to face him, whereupon rushed to his house and returned back with a farsa and then, gave a blow over his head as a result of which, he sustained injury and fell down. Then thereafter, Mantu Prasad, Sunil Prasad and Munna Prasad came and began to entice Yugal Prasad to kill in case, he (informant) is not ready to construct his house or to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and then, they began to assault with leg and fists. Furthermore, Sunil Prasad put string around his neck and began to pull. During course thereof, Mintu Devi also came, abused his mother, who came in rescue and assaulted with brick particle over her right leg causing injury thereupon. On hue and cry, the persons present in market assembled, whereupon accused persons left the place.
4. After registration of Kateya P. S. Case No.112 of 2006, investigation was taken up and after completing the same, chargesheet was submitted followed with trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 4
5. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-
examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the prosecution party forcibly tried to evacuate the accused persons from a house occupied by them and during course thereof, they were assaulted and for that, Kateya P. S. Case No.114 of 2006 was registered and only to put safeguard upon their interest, taking the police as well as doctor got this case filed after obtaining false and forged injury report. Furthermore, ocular as well as documentary evidence has also been adduced in support thereof.
6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether ten PWs, who are PW-1, Dharmraj Prasad, PW- 2, Mukti Tiwari, PW-3, Ramji Yadav, PW-4, Nazma Khatoon, PW-5, Pato Devi, PW-6, Satyadeo Prasad, PW-7, Rabindra Paswan, PW-8, Ramswarup Singh, PW-9, Hemendra Narayan Choudhary and PW-10, Brij Kishor Singh. Side by side, had also exhibited as Exhibit-1, signature of informant over fard-bayan, Exhibit-1/1, fard-bayan, Exhibit-2, formal F.I.R., Exhibit-3 series, injury reports, Exhibit-4, original deed of gift.
7. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 5 lower Court failed to appreciate the relevant point involved in this appeal, which in case been appreciated would have led judgment of acquittal. In order to substantiate the same, it has been submitted that though the prosecution party had based upon theme of partition suggesting that had already taken place through the process of the court, but failed to produce the aforesaid document. Aforesaid event has got relevancy in the background of the fact that:-
I) Both the parties are full brother.
II) Appellants have denied any kind of partition having effected amongst the family and III) Appellants had questioned validity of Exhibit-4, deed of gift having been executed by his father in favour of PW-1 as well as PW-6 relating to ancestral property would have proper recognition in the eye of law and that happens to be reason behind that his father, who has been shown to be present at the P.O. since before along with the informant did not dare to come before the Court to depose. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that it was not the appellants rather it was the prosecution party, who on the basis of the aforesaid collusive document tried to overthrow the appellants, and during course thereof, brutally assaulted and for that, a case has been registered. Only to counter-meet with the same, instant prosecution has been launched Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 6 with false and frivolous allegation.
8. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that the genuineness of defence version is found supported with the prosecution case itself as there happens to be specific disclosure in the fard-bayan as well as the deposition of PW-6, informant, that during course of brawl having amongst both of them, the appellant Yugal Prasad could not match with him and on account thereof, gone to his house took out farsa and then, inflicted farsa blow. Was it possible when appellant was already overpowered by the informant himself. There happens to be no disclosure at his end that he got out of clutch of the informant and then, rushed to the house, took out farsa and then, assaulted. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that illegal activity of the prosecution party is itself evident from Annexure-4, the gift-deed, which has been executed by his father in favour of PW-1 and PW-6 and these are the persons, who only to teach a lesson, brought their own henchmen to depose against the appellants, who was assaulted at the end of the prosecution party and for that, Kateya P. S. Case No.214 of 2006 was there against them (prosecution).
9. It has also been submitted that how far the prosecution case has been developed is evident from the evidence of I.O. (PW-7). Furthermore, from the objective finding of the I.O. regarding the place of occurrence, it is apparent that same did not justify the prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 7 version.
10. Even in worst case, it has been submitted that so far activity of appellant Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad, Sunil Prasad and Mintu Devi are concerned, they have purposely been introduced by the prosecution having their presence after alleged main occurrence and to that extent, there happens to be development in the evidence of respective witnesses. Furthermore, there happens to be an admission at the end of the informant (PW-6) that only one farsa blow was given and then, appellants left the scene. So, considering the nature of the evidence, motive so flashed during course of cross-examination of the respective witnesses, presence of case and counter-case and further, having scuffle in between informant as well as Yugal Prasad over soiling road, which might probablized the injury on fall, if head is struck over corner of a brick, the judgment of conviction and sentence impugned did not find favour and should be set aside.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while refuting the submission made on behalf of appellant has submitted that if the appellants were aggrieved by Exhibit-4, then in that circumstance, they would have taken proper legal recourse by way of filing a civil suit for revoking the same, indulging in physical assault on that very score, would not be permitted. That being so, rightly been convicted and sentenced on account of having been Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 8 properly substantiated by the evidence of the doctor as well as independent witnesses including that of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is fit to be dismissed.
12. PW-9 is the doctor, who had examined PW-5 Pato Devi as well as PW-6 Satyadeo Prasad on 03.08.2006 and found the following:-
Pato Devi
a) Pain, swelling and contusion mark on her right side thigh and back.
b) Pain and swelling left side forehead.
The nature of injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and age of injuries was within one hour.
Satyadeo Prasad
a) Incised wound on the left occipital region in semi lunar type about 2" x ½" x bone deep. Bleeding profusely.
b) Abrasion on the right knee about 1" diameter.
c) Pain, swelling and contusion mark on the left shoulder 4" x 3".
d) Contusion mark on neck from left to right in front. And has reported about injury no.(a) caused by sharp cutting weapon and others by hard and blunt substance simple in nature.
13. Now, before coming to oral evidence, the status of the witnesses are to be seen. PW-10 is the formal witness, who had exhibited Exhibit-4. PW-8 is the part I.O., who had simply submitted Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 9 chargesheet. PW-1 and PW-6 along with appellant Yugal Prasad are full brothers and are sons of PW-5 Pato Devi as well as Gokhula Prasad (not examined). PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are the local vegetable vendors.
14. PW-5 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, Satyadeo Prasad (informant), Yugal Prasad (one of the appellants) were at the shop. They firstly indulged in an altercation and then, in scuffle. Then thereafter, Yugal Prasad gone to house, took out farsa, whereupon, she after leaving her meal, rushed. Yugal Prasad gave farsa blow over head of Satyadeo Prasad, Satyadeo Prasad fell down. Then thereafter, Sunil Prasad, Mantu Prasad and Munna Prasad came, put string around neck of Satyadeo Prasad and dragged him to some distance and then, assaulted him with leg and fists. People took away Satyadeo Prasad to Police Station, police had recorded his statement, but had not recorded correctly. Identified the accused. During cross-examination, she had admitted at Para-7 (wrongly mentioned as Para-17 and onward) that they were not on strained relationship since before. They are separate in mess and business. She is along with Satyadeo Prasad. At Para-8, she had stated that her house is not new. Yugal Prasad had constructed his house near the house of Dewan. In Para-9, she had stated that she is not knowing whether her husband had executed gift deed in favour of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 10 Satyadeo Prasad and others on 13.04.2006. In Para-20 (wrongly numbered), then had stated that she had not seen injury over the person of Yugal Prasad and his wife, she is not knowing whether Yugal Prasad and his wife were admitted at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj, she is not knowing whether case has been instituted at the behest of Yugal Prasad. In Para-22, (wrongly mentioned), she had stated that she was not knowing that both the brothers were quarrelling, but they were quarrelling since half hour. She is not remembering that at that very time, her husband was present. She had further stated that quarrel was going at her darwaza. About ten people have arrived, but she is unable to disclose their name. In Para-23, she had stated that she had got only one house which happens to be ancestral one. At the time of dispute, Yugal Prasad was residing in the same house, but six months thereafter, he had constructed his own house wherein he is living. Then had admitted at Para-25 that Mantu Prasad, Sunil Prasad and Munna Prasad are not her Pattidars rather they are supporting Yugal Prasad. In Para-22, she had stated that she had seen taking out farsa from house. She had gone to prevent, but till then, wife of Yugal Prasad gave brick particle blow over her leg as a result of which, she could not prevent. Blow was given from front side. In Para-28, she had stated that after falling of Satyedeo Prasad, string was put around his neck, it was of nylon. Then, on that very Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 11 score, there happens to be contradiction under Para-29 and is found corroborated by PW-7, I.O. at Para-11. Then had denied the suggestion that at the instance of Satyadeo Prasad, she had deposed falsely.
15. PW-6 is the informant/ injured, who had deposed that on 03.08.2006 at about 3.00 p.m., he was sitting at his shop lying in front of his house. His father was also sitting there. Yugal Prasad came and began to assault him as well as his father, whereupon he forbade him. Then, Yugal Prasad had said that either you will have to pay Rs.2,00,000/- or got his house constructed, whereupon he stated that after partition through Court, he is constructing his own house and in likewise manner, he should also be, whereupon Yugal Prasad said that he will kill him or will facilitate kidnapping of his son. Then thereafter, he indulged in scuffle and when he could not match with him, then he rushed to his house returned back with farsa and gave farsa blow over his head, as a result of which, he sustained injury, fell down. Blood oozen out. Then thereafter, Mantu Prasad, Sunil Prasad, Munna Prasad came and provoked to assault. During midst thereof, Sunil Prasad laid down string around his neck and dragged him and during course thereof, all of them assaulted him with fists and slaps as well as leg. Wife of Yugal Prasad came and began to abuse. When mother came, she was assaulted by Mintu Devi with brick particle Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 12 over right leg of his mother. After hue and cry, the accused persons left the scene. Then thereafter, he was taken to hospital where police came, recorded his fard-bayan (exhibited). During cross-examination, he had admitted execution of deed of gift by his father in favour of PW-1 as well as he himself (Para-10) whereupon he as well as his brother had constructed so many shops. He had further disclosed that after the occurrence, Yugal Prasad had constructed his house separately over his allotted share near State Bank. In Para-11, he had also admitted presence of case having instituted at the end of the Yugal Prasad over the assault having over his person as well as person of his wife. In Para-13, he had stated that before the occurrence, they were jointly residing in an ancestral house and shown its boundary as South-Mahadev Sah, East-Jangli Sah, West- road, North-Butai Sah. The Kharanja road which lies west, is the place of occurrence where he was thrown over the ground. In Para- 15, he had stated that his father used to look after his business. In presence of his father demand was made by Yugal Prasad either to pay Rs.2,00,000/- or to get his house constructed. In Para-17, he had stated that after throwing him on the ground, Yugal Prasad left him and then, gone to house to bring farsa. During the intervening period, he had not tried to flee there from. He had not tried to prevent himself during course of inflicting farsa blow. After sustaining farsa blow, he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 13 fell down. No blow was repeated. In Para-19, he had stated that when he fell down then thereafter, string was put around his neck. Accused persons escaped there from leaving string around his neck. Then had denied the suggestion that on the basis of collusive deed of gift, they forcibly tried to evacuate Yugal Prasad and his family and during course thereof, they ransacked their house, dismantled and destroyed their belongings and also assaulted Yugal Prasad and his wife and only to save their skin, this case has been instituted.
16. PW-1 is the another brother. He had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he had seen Yugal Prasad present at his old shop and was saying to Satyadeo Prasad and Gokhula Prasad (father) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise, got a house constructed for him and during course thereof, Yugal Prasad also abused both of them. Furthermore, he also threw both of them on the ground one by one. Thereafter Yugal Prasad gone to his house, took out farsa and then, gave blow over Satyadeo Prasad. During midst thereof, Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad and Sunil Prasad arrived and provoked Yugal Prasad to kill. His mother Pato Devi came in rescue, she was assaulted by Mintu Devi by brick particles over her right leg, Sunil Prasad dragged Satyadeo Prasad after putting string around his neck, identified the accused. He had further stated that he had not made statement before the police during course of investigation. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 14 During cross-examination at Para-9, he had admitted that they both have got common house. For the last one year, they are separate by metes and bounds through Court. He had further stated that he got share in lieu of house wherein he had shop in front as well as residential house in the back portion. In Para-10, he had further stated that he is unable to say how much share was given to the accused in the shop, but share was given, which is scribed over the paper. He is unable to say on which date, paper was prepared and in what manner. In Para-12, he had stated that he, for the last six months, is doing separate business in a rented shop. In Para-13, he had stated that his father is running the old shop. In Para-15, he stated that after partition, the dispute arose as accused is insisting upon his house be constructed, but same was not decided by the Panches. Who were Panches, he is unable to say. Then had denied the suggestion that Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad and Sunil Prasad were amongst the Panches. In Para-19, he had stated that he along with informant and his father happens to be joint while Yugal Prasad was separate. In Para-21, he had stated that quarrel took place over a Gali having ten feet width. 30-35 shops are there. Shopkeepers have assembled. They intervened and got the matter pacified. He was eating. After washing his hands, he came to place of occurrence. In Para-24, he had stated that they took the victim to the P.S. wherefrom he was sent to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 15 hospital. In Para-25, he had stated that the place where his brother had fallen, blood was there. Blood had not fallen in the midst of way. At Para-29, he stated that P.O. happens to be soiling road. Satyadeo Prasad had fallen down over the soiling road. Then had shown ignorance with regard to institution of counter-case. He had also denied that they have filed this case only to meet out the allegation having attributed by the Yugal Prasad.
17. PW-2 reiterated the same version in his examination- in-chief. During his cross-examination at Para-9, he had stated that P.O. happens to be the old building wherein Yugal Prasad is not residing. Satyadeo and his brother along with parents are residing. He does not know whether Yugal has been given share in that building or not. Where Yugal is residing, he is not knowing. At Para-11, he had stated that he had not seen injury over the person of Yugal as well as his wife. In Para-14, he had stated that Satyadeo Prasad had got no share. He sells the goods in an open place having in front of his house while Yugal Prasad is a driver. At Para-15, he had again said that Yugal Prasad and Satyadeo Prasad are residing in same house. There happens to be contradiction at Para-18 and the same is found corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 under Para-8. Then had stated that he had seen taking out farsa from the house. At that very moment, Satyadeo Prasad was to enter inside his house. Satyadeo Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 16 Prasad was outside. Then had denied the suggestion that he in collusion with informant and his brother had deposed falsely.
18. PW-3 during examination-in-chief had reiterated the same version. During cross-examination at Para-4 had stated that Satyadeo Prasad and Yugal Prasad are full-brother. They are on strained relationship due to dispute over partition of house. Then had detailed the land with regard thereto, they are on strained relationship under Para-5. Then at Para-7, he had stated that he had seen wife of Yugal Prasad. He had denied the suggestion that her modesty was outraged and on that very score, his attention has been drawn up under Para-8 is found corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 under Para-9. He had further stated at Para-10 that he had not seen injury over the person of Yugal Prasad and wife of Yugal. In Para-12, he had stated that when Yugal gone to his house to take farsa, so many persons were present there. None of them had tried to apprehend him. Satyadeo Prasad had not ran there from seeing Yugal Prasad armed with farsa. After sustaining farsa injury, Satyadeo Prasad fell down. No repetition of blow was given by Yugal. In Para-14, he had stated that Sunil Prasad happens to be cousin brother of Satyadeo Prasad. Then had disclosed at Para-15 that he had stated before the Police that Yugal Prasad had put string around the neck of Satyadeo Prasad. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 17
19. PW-4 during examination-in-chief had re-iterated the version of the prosecution. During cross-examination at Para-7, he had admitted that at the time of occurrence, Yugal was living in the same house in which Satyadeo Prasad resides. After occurrence, Yugal had constructed another house. At Para-9, she had stated that marpit took place at the darwaza of the house. Then at Para-9, there happens to be contradiction, which is found corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 under Para-10. In Para-10, she had stated that she had not seen injury over the person of Yugal and his wife, but he came to know that they were also admitted at the hospital. At Para-12, she had further stated that she had not seen string in the hands of Munna Prasad and Mantu Prasad, but had seen they were tying the same around the neck of the Satyadeo Prasad. At that very time, so many persons were present did not come. Then at Para-15, there happens to be contradiction.
20. PW-7 is the I.O. and accordingly, exhibited the relevant document. Then had said that after having been entrusted with the investigation, he proceeded there with, inspected the P.O. It happens to be Sabji Mandi road of Kateya Bazar running North to South-old house of informant lies East lane. The aforesaid Gali has been shown to the P.O. Then had disclosed boundary of the P.O. as North and South-soiling road, West-shop of Bhushan Prasad, East- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 18 house of Yugal Prasad, recorded statement of witnesses, procured the injury report and then, after concluding the same, submitted chargeseet. Paras-8 to 11 happen to be contradiction relating to different witnesses.
21. From the evidence as discussed hereinabove, it is evident that both the parties are full-brothers. It is also evident that on account of partition as well as getting a deed of gift in favour of informant (PW-6) as well as PW-1, the dispute arose. Though the deed of gift has been exhibited as Exhibit-4, document relating to partition by court as admitted by the PW-1, PW-6, no document has been exhibted. In the aforesaid background, there happens to be some sort of dubious activity at the end of the prosecution, which got strengthened in the background of non-examination of father of the respective parties, who admittedly was present at the P.O. Furthermore, it is evident that first of all, there was an altercation in between followed with scuffle and during course thereof, there happens to be specific disclosure at the end of the informant that when Yugal failed to match with him, then thereafter, he had gone to house and came back with farsa by which he gave a blow. So, it was after having been overpowered by the PW-6. Moreover, it happens to be consistent version that no second blow was given. Furthermore, the nature of the injury suggest that it was not at all with an intention to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 19 kill otherwise, there was no intervening circumstance and further, had there been an intention to kill, the blow would have been given more severe. Apart from the fact that it was in sudden re-action.
22. Now, coming to activity of the remaining appellants Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad and Sunil Prasad, their activities have been perceived by way of material development, which the PW-7 (I.O.) had substantiated. In likewise manner, the status of Mintu Devi stood, who during course of examination-in-chief by the PW-5 Pato Devi had not been identified by her assailant.
23. Apart from this, so far conviction and sentence under Section 504 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there happens to be no evidence. To appreciate properly, Section 504 of the I.P.C. is quoted below:-
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provoca-
tion to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
From the evidence, it is evident that there happens to be complete absence at the end of the prosecution that by way of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 20 provocation having been at the end of Yugal Prasad by his action, the prosecution party intended to break the public peace or to commit an offence and so, the finding recorded by the learned lower Court regarding Section 504 of the I.P.C. is not at all found sustainable.
24. After giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, appellants Mantu Prasad, Munna Prasad and Sunil Prasad are acquitted. That being so, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.350 of 2015 is allowed. They are on bail, hence are discharged from its liability.
25. So far appellant Mintu Devi is concerned, she is also acquitted considering the evidence of the victim (PW-5) and that being so, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.463 of 2015, to her extent is also allowed. She is on bail, hence is discharged from its liability.
26. So far appellant Yugal Prasad is concerned, he is found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 324 of the I.P.C. However, considering the nature of the dispute and manner whereunder occurrence has been committed instead of sentencing him, it looks appropriate to direct him to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties effective for a year, during midst thereof, he is directed to maintain peace and harmony, failing which he will have to present himself for hearing Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.350 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018 21 substantial substance as provided under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. He is on bail, which is extended for further fortnight in order to facilitate him to execute bond. In terms thereof, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.463 of 2015 relating to appellant Yugal Prasad is partly allowed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 29.03.2018 Transmission 29.03.2018 Date