Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 190 OF 1994 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.6.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 962/89 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. ****** 1. RANG BAHADUR SINGH 2. MAN BAHADUR SINGH BOTH S/O PARAS NATH SINGH 3. AKHILESHWAR SINGH 4. MITHILESH SINGH @ MITHILESH SINGH 5. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH SONS OF MAN BAHADUR SINGH ALL R/O VILLAGE-GODIHA, P.S. SAHAR DISTRICT- BHOJPUR ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Opposite Party ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.2 Adv. Ranjan Kr. Singh Adv. For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under Sections 307 and 148 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and convicted to a sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 1 year and further 1 year respectively whereas the appellant nos. 2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months respectively. The appellant no.2 has also been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 109 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed. 2. It has been submitted that the appellant no.1 had died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore his appeal has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as such. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.6.1988 the accused persons variously armed assaulted the informant on account of land dispute which was going on between informant and the accused persons. 2 4. The prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses out of whom P.W.2 is formal and P.W.1 is the informant and P.W. 3 is another witness whereas P.W.4 is the doctor who examined P.W.1. On behalf of the defence P.W.1 was examined to prove the counter case of the same occurrence as also some documents to show that there was land dispute between the parties and in fact the informant side was the aggressor. 5. I find from the evidence of P.W. 1 & 3 that there is no explanation about the counter version which was to the effect that in fact the house of the accused was ransacked by the prosecution party. It also appears that the Investigating Officer was not examined on behalf of the prosecution who alone would have brought the real story before the court and in absence of the same, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case becomes doubtful. 6. In view of the discussion noted above this appeal is allowed and conviction and sentenced of the appellants passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 962/89 are hereby set aside and the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 31th March, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.