BHARAT OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 23.6.1992 passed by Sri Sohailur Rahman. Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 1985, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge held all the 17 appellants guilty under Section 379, IPC convicted them thereunder and sentenced all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 379, IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held appellant No. 1 Bharat Ojha, appellant No. 12 Umashankar Ojha and appellant No. 16 Jai Mangal Ojha guilty under Section 323, IPC and convicted them thereunder and sentenced these three appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323, IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered to run the sentences so passed concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story as disclosed by informant Mosafir Singh (PW 6) in short, is as\follows :

(3.) On the basis of written report of informant (Ext. 2) formal FIR (Ext. 1) was drawn and investigation of the case was taken up by SI Mithilesh Kumar (not examined), who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet in this case. On the basis of charge-sheet cognizance of the offences against accused persons was taken up and later on the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As it appears learned trial Court though framed charge against appellant No. 2 Sheo Dular Ojha and appellant No. 11 Kameshwar @ Achaibar Ojha under Section 307, IPC and against appellant No. 3 Hawaldar Ojha under Section 307/34, IPC against appellant No. 2 Sheo Dular Ojha and appellant No. 11 Kameshwar @ Achaibar Ojha under Section 27 of the Arms Act, against appellant No. 5 Ram Dular Ojha under Section 324, IPC against appellant No. 7 Sushil Ojha, appellant No. 10 Bijai Ojha, appellant No. 12 Umashankar Ojha, appellant No. 15 Guru Yadav and appellant No. 16 Jai Mangal Ojha under Section 323, IPC and all the appellants 1 to 17 under Section 379, IPC learned trial Court held appellants guilty for the offences and sentenced and convicted them thereunder as indicated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.