IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.834 of 2002

1. Ram Bachan Ram, son of Late Sheo Pujan Ram.

2. Deputy Yadav, son of Late Mukhram Singh.

3. Bhallu Singh, son of Gokhul Singh.

All residents of village-Sarna, Police Station-Dinara, District-Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Lala Mahto, son of Ram Kabal Mahto, resident of village-Sarna, Police Station-

Dinara, District-Rohtas.

.... .... Opposite Party/s

===========================================================

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s

: Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State

: Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date: 27-09-2013

Petitioners, Ram Bachan Ram, Deputy Yadav, Bhallu

Singh filed instant revision against the judgment dated 12.07.2002

passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal

No.154/1990 dismissing the same which was filed against the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.1990 passed by

Shri B.C. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bikramganj in G.R.

No.129 of 1983 holding the petitioners guilty for an offence

punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence

each of them to undergo R.I. for two years as well as also each one

was fined Rs.1000/- in default thereof to undergo imprisonment of

two months additionally.

2.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the

2.

prosecution story suffers from improbability because of the fact that

being a co-villager it was not expected at the end of petitioners to

pounced upon the prosecution party and will commit the offence

without concealing their identity. It has further been submitted that

during course of consideration of evidence the successive courts

failed to appreciate material development over manner of occurrence

as well as with regard to source of identification. Then it has been

submitted that the occurrence happens to be of chilly winter season

and so it was unexpected at the end of the prosecution party to be

on road that too at midnight. Simultaneously, it was not expected at

the part of petitioners to be there since before awaiting arrival of

prosecution party. Then it has been submitted that during course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer was not at all shown the

source of identification. The lantern or torch was not seized during

course of investigation. Furthermore, the nature of evidence suggest

that it happens to be out and out a case of plantation.

3.

At the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor while supporting the current finding submitted that the

learned trial court as well as appellate court had minutely gone

through the evidence on record and on account thereof, the finding

and sentence recorded by learned lower court should not be

disturbed during course of revisional jurisdiction.

3.

4.

PW-3, Lalan Mahto recorded First Information Report on

13.01.1983 at about 11:45 A.M. disclosing therein that after

crushing sugarcane at Koluhari, he along with his sons Laxman

Mahto and Bharat Mahto were returning to his house along with a

pair of oxen and as soon as reached near the house of Ghutai Yadav,

Ram Bachhan Rai armed with country made gun, Bishwanath Rai

armed with gun, Deputy Yadav armed with Lathi and Bhallu Singh

armed with gun cordoned them and made one round of firing on

account of which they became afraid. Thereafter, Bhallu Singh

snatched away one wrist watch, ox from Laxman Mahto while Ram

Bachan Rai snatched away another ox from Bharat Mahto. Deputy

and Bishwanath took away blanket and torch from Laxman. Bharat

raised alarm over which Ram Bachan assaulted him with butt of

gun. Nagina Mahto, Acchuta Nand Tiwari, Dharamdeo Mahto along

with others arrived at their alarm. They