Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned appellate court acquitted the petitioner no.1 for offence under Section 325 of IPC and acquitted the petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 5 for offence under Section 354 of IPC and accordingly modified the conviction of the petitioners. Consequently, the appellate court convicted the petitioner No.4 for offence under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 448 of IPC; petitioner No.1 for offence under Sections 148, 323, 448, 354 of IPC and rest of the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 323 and 448 of IPC and consequently, the appellate court modified the sentence also.

10. It appears from the lower court record that after passing the bail order by this Court, the petitioners had furnished their bail bond on 15.07.2015. Thus, it appears that the petitioners, except petitioner no.5, have completed two months custody and accordingly petitioners, except petitioner no.5, have already served the sentence for offence under Section 323 of IPC as well as for offence under Section 448 IPC and the petitioner no.1, who has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC, has also served the sentence under the said section. The concerned petitioners, who have been sentenced under Section 448 of IPC have also served the sentence of two months.

18. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offences as mentioned above. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences on record and partly interfered with the conviction as well as the sentences. The learned appellate court recorded its findings, interalia, as under: -

" P.W-1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 who are witnesses on fact of occurrence and they in their statements have proved that, at the time of occurrence, all above named accused came at the house of informant being member of unlawful assembly and armed with lathi, axe and rod and entered in house of informant and beated Punu (Informant), Soni Devi, Pramila, Kunti, Mohini and Mahendra causing simple injury on their body. The witnesses of prosecution have not told that and at the time of occurrence accused / petitioner Gorka hit Kunti to cause injury on her body, but informant (P.W.-8) told that, petitioner Tumpa hit Kunti on her hand by lathi causing fracture on her hand. Further victim Soni in her statement has clearly told that only Gorka on pretext of giving colour on occasion of Holi, tore her saree and blouse and outraged her modesty, and other petitioner according to her did not outrage her modesty. Thus, on careful consideration of evidences of prosecution, I find that in court below the prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 148, 323, and 448 of IPC against all petitioners and they are guilty for these offences and u/s 325 of IPC against only appellant Tumpa and he is guilty for this offence, and u/s 354 of IPC against only petitioner Gorka and he is guilty for this offence. But prosecution has not succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 325 of IPC against petitioner Gorka and he is not guilty for this offence. The prosecution has also not succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 354 of IPC against petitioner Jamun, Tumpa and Pampu and they are not guilty of this offence. Therefore, I find that the aforesaid impugned order regarding conviction of petitioners requires modification. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned order regarding conviction of petitioners is hereby modified and petitioner Tumpa is convicted for offence u/s 148, 323, 325 and 448 of IPC. Petitioner Gorka is convicted for offence u/s 148, 323, 448 and 354 of IPC and rest above named petitioners namely Jamun Paswan, Jitendra Paswan, Rumpa Paswan, Sukhdeo Paswan, Sangma Paswan and Pampu Paswan are convicted for offence u/s 148, 323 and 448 of IPC. "So far as the sentences are concerned, they were also modified by the learned appellate court as already mentioned above.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and specific allegation against the petitioner No.4, who was armed with sharp cutting weapon and had assaulted and consequently was convicted under Section 325 of IPC, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner No.4 and accordingly his case, is dismissed. He has also been inflicted with a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the learned court below.

22. So far as petitioners Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 & 8 are concerned, they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 448 of IPC and they have remained in custody for two months and have served their sentences for offences under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, but the sentence under Section 148 IPC, which a for a period of three months, has not yet been completed.