Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 133 OF 1995 Against the judgment and order dated 15.07.1995 passed by Sri Devi Dayal Prasad, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 500 of 1986. ************ Nagdeo Tewari, S/o Late Gena Tiwari, resident of Village-Teghra, P.S.-Hebia, District-Bhojpur. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Angad Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, 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 436 and 341 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years and 15 days respectively and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which one month SI by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 500 of 1986 by a judgment dated 15.07.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant P.W. 3 Adalat Nat is that on 20.03.1986 an altercation took place between the informant and P.W. 4 Ram Devi at which he assaulted her with lathi on her head. The informant was assaulted with fists and slaps. Later on the same day at 9.30 P.M. the appellant came to the house of the informant and started abusing and when he protested he forcibly took away Bishwanath Nat to assault him and when P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 arrived there he was extracted. Then at the instance of the absconding accused Bengali Nat appellant is said to have set fire to the house of the informant in which his hut and household articles were burnt. 3. The prosecution has proved six witnesses and exhibited certain documents to prove its case. P.W. 5 2 Mahabir Dubey has been declared hostile whereas P.W. 4 Randeo Devi who was assaulted by the co-accused has been tendered. P.W. 3, Adalat Nat is the informant of the case whereas P.W. 1 is Vishwanath Nat who had been confined by the accused persons. P.W. 2 is a witness on the occurrence whereas P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, it appears that they have given discrepant timings as to whom P.W. 1 Vishwanath Nat had been confined by the accused persons. P.W. 6 who is the Investigating Officer found signs of burning at the place of occurrence. However, the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the appellant burning the house of the informant appears to be unreliable because it does not stand to reason that the Appellant would indulge in the said act in full view of the informant and others. It also appears that the witnesses were inimical to the present appellants. All the witnesses who are material are relatives and interested and the story that the appellant had set fire the house of the informant appears gravely unreliable. 4. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.07.1995 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 500 of 1986 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 1st July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-