Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.213 OF 1994 Against the Judgment and order dated 11.7.1994 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.153/92 / 2/93. 1.MAHABIR SINGH SON Of BANSHI SINGH @RAJ BANSHI SINGH 2.PREMCHAND SINGH SON OF SUNAR SINGH @ RAM SUNDER SINGH 3.HARI KISHORE SINGH SON OF RAM DAYAL SINGH 4.NAGENDRA SINGH SON OF RAM DAYAL SINGH 5.SURESH SINGH SON OF PHULENA SINGH 6.RAM DAYAL SINGH SON OF BALI SINGH 7.SURENDRA SINGH SON OF MAHABIR SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-KURMAUTA, P.S. NAUTAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. …………… Appellants. Versus STATE OF BIHAR-----------------Respondent. For the appellants:Mr.Bindhkeshari Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate. For the State:Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal,Advocate. For the informant:Mr.Awanish Kumar Pandey,A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash,J. Appellant no.7 has been convicted under section 304 Part II of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years whereas appellant no.6 has been convicted under section 304 Part II read with section 109 of I.P.C.and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and rest of the appellants have been convicted under section 304 Part II read with section 34 of I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and these appellants have further been convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month by a judgment dated 11.7.1994 by 2nd 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial no.153/92 / 2/93. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the parties clashed between themselves on the point of drainage in which the deceased lost his life after twenty days. Initially the case was instituted under section 307 of I.P.C. but after death of the deceased twenty days later case was converted into section 302 of I.P.C. and the appellants were put on trial for the said offence. 3. After close of the evidence the appellants were acquitted of charge under section 302 of I.P.C. when there was complete paucity of ingredients of section 307 of I.P.C. the appellants were convicted as mentioned above. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the occurrence took place in a different manner in which appellants no.7 and 1 were seriously injured. Prosecution party has been convicted later on. Incidentally none of the prosecution witnesses has explained the injuries sustained by the appellants and on this score alone it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and its true story has been suppressed. Further D.W.3 was also examined on behalf of the appellants apart from other witnesses to prove the counter version and for bringing the injury report on record. Therefore, admittedly, the appellants no.1 and 7 had sustained injury in the same transaction which part has been suppressed by the prosecution. 5. In the result I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 3 6. In view of such this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.153/92 / 2/93 by the judgment dated 11.7.1994 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges.The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court,Patna Dated the 1st April,2011. N.A.F.R./AnilKrSinha ( Anjana Prakash, J.)