Prayag Rai, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr. justice a.n. venugopala gowda, j.] w.p.no. 19935/2009 is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india pr/wing to call for the entire records relating to concerning and connected with the impugned order & proceedings dated 11.3.2009 in ref. no.47/06 on its file. from the iii addl. labour court. bangalore vide annexure -a peruse the same and quash the said order by declaring that the proceedings culminating in the same are void and incompetent. [mr. justice a.n. venugopala gowda, j.] w.p.no.35288/2010 is piled under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the award dated 11.3.2009 passed by the iii addl. labour court, bangalore in ref.no.47/2006 the certified copies of which are marked as annexure - a to the extent the petitioner is aggrieved.1. the appellants no. 1, 6 and 8 have been convicted under sections 148 and 324 ipc and sentenced to two years ri under both counts whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under section 147 ipc and sentenced to ri for one year by a judgment dated 22.08.1995 in s.tr. no. 68/89 by the sessions judge, samastipur.2. the case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.1982 an altercation arose between the parties over cutting of the paddy crops in course of which the appellant no. 8 is said to have given "farsa" blow on the head of the informant, appellant no. 6 is said to have given "bhala" blow on the head of ram julum rai and gave a "farsa" blow on the head of ram pragas rai. the rest of the appellants assaulted with lathi. the reason was land dispute and an attempt by the accused dispossessed the prosecution party from the land in question.3. the case of the defence is that in fact the sale deeds of the said land were in favour of the accused persons and when the accused had gone to plough the lands the injured were assaulted.4. during trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom p.w. 1, p.w. 2 and p.w. 4 are formal in nature whereas p.w. 3, p.w. 4, p.w. 5 and p.w. 6, the informant is eye witnesses.5. the defence examined three witnesses on its behalf and also proved a certain documents by way of sale deeds of the land in question to show that the disputed lands belonged to the accused persons. the appellants were acquitted of the charge under section 307/149 ipc holding that the assault on the injured persons was not intended to cause their death.6. admittedly only interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the defence of the appellants, that in fact the prosecution party was the aggressor and forcibly attempted to occupy the land cannot be ruled out. therefore, giving benefit of right private defence of property the appellants are acquitted of the charges. in the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 22.08.1995 passed by the sessions judge, samastipur in s.tr. no. 68/89 is set aside. the appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.

Judgment:
1. The appellants No. 1, 6 and 8 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 324 IPC and sentenced to two years RI under both counts whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year by a judgment dated 22.08.1995 in S.Tr. No. 68/89 by the Sessions Judge, Samastipur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.1982 an altercation arose between the parties over cutting of the paddy crops in course of which the appellant No. 8 is said to have given "Farsa" blow on the head of the informant, appellant No. 6 is said to have given "Bhala" blow on the head of Ram Julum Rai and gave a "Farsa" blow on the head of Ram Pragas Rai. The rest of the appellants assaulted with lathi. The reason was land dispute and an attempt by the accused dispossessed the prosecution party from the land in question.

3. The case of the defence is that in fact the sale deeds of the said land were in favour of the accused persons and when the accused had gone to plough the lands the injured were assaulted.

4. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are formal in nature whereas P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, the informant is eye witnesses.

5. The defence examined three witnesses on its behalf and also proved a certain documents by way of sale deeds of the land in question to show that the disputed lands belonged to the accused persons. The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 307/149 IPC holding that the assault on the injured persons was not intended to cause their death.

6. Admittedly only interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the defence of the appellants, that in fact the prosecution party was the aggressor and forcibly attempted to occupy the land cannot be ruled out. Therefore, giving benefit of right private defence of property the appellants are acquitted of the charges. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 22.08.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.Tr. No. 68/89 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.