Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 193 OF 1996 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ Nagendra Singh, S/o Ram Balisth Singh, R/o Village-Ismailpur, Post-Rampur, Police Station-Garakha, District-Saran. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. : Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Pd. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of which further one year and one year respectively by the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran in S.Tr. No. 171/94/22/94 by a judgment dated 02/06.08.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.1993 when the mother of the informant namely Kalawati Devi, P.W. 2 was cutting grass the appellant along with other co-accused persons came there and abused her and the appellant is said to have assaulted her on her left hand and head on account of which she was injured. The reason for the occurrence is land dispute between the parties. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 is the 2 informant, P.W. 2 is the informant’s mother and the injured. P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are eye-witnesses whereas P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined P.W. 2 and the informant and P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence has also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. D.W. 2 has come on the point that the occurrence was false whereas D.W. 1 has proved the First Information Report of the counter- version which is Garakha P.S. Case No. 21/93 and the injury report of appellant, Nagendra Singh. Other documents were also proved by the defence to show enmity between the parties. The motive for the occurrence is a disputed ridge between the parties on account of which both the parties clashed with each other. P.W. 2, the mother of the informant has admitted the factum of previous enmity between the parties but she has denied the fact of the counter-version given by the appellant in which admittedly he was injured. Similarly, P.W. 3 informant has merely stated about his own case but has denied the fact of existence of the counter-version or the injury sustained by the appellant. 5. On going through the records of the case the admitted position is that the appellant was also injured for which a First Information Report was instituted and, therefore, it is difficult to accept the 3 prosecution case as a true version of the occurrence that had taken place on 08.02.1993. 6. In the result, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 02/06.08.1996 passed by the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 171/94/22/94 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 16th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-