Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.307 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.9.1994 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.561 of 1993/ 3 of 1994] NAWAL CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAMJI CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILALGE CHISTIPUR, P.S. ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA ------------------------ Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------------------- Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/s. 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. by a judgment dated 3.9.1994 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.561 of 1993/ 3 of 1994 after having been acquitted of charge u/s.302 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.5, the wife of the deceased, is that when her husband was returning home on 18.5.1993 at 8 P.M. an altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased, then the appellant gave a stone blow on the head of the deceased, on account of which he died. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.3 was declared hostile and P.W.6 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination report. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 - 2 - are the eye witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication on account of admitted land dispute. On going through the evidence of the material eye witnesses, I find that there are completely reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which has remained unshaken. Moreover, the doctor’s evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer also found the occurrence having taken place at the place of where it was alleged to have been done, there were no contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. On consideration of the entire conspectus of the case and the fact that the appellant had remained in custody for a year during trial, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant be maintained, but sentence be modified to the extent already undergone by him but in addition the appellant (if alive) is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the informant/family within eight weeks of receipt of such a notice from the trial court, in absence of which he shall be sentenced to a period of six months R.I. With these modifications, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated, 4th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )