Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.243 OF 1994 Against the Judgment dated 12.7.1994 passed by Sri Chirangi Singh, Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial no.322 of 1987. 1.SETH MAHTON SON OF DEO LAL MAHTON. 2.GAYA BIND SON OF BAGEN BIND. 3.MOTI CHAND BIND SON OF HAYAKAYAT BIND ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-KOERPATTI,P.S. BAIRIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. -----AppellantS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR-------------------Respondent. For the appellants: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, For the Respondent: Dr. Indiwar Kumari,A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash,J. Appellants No.1 and 3 have been convicted under section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year whereas appellant no.2 has been convicted under sections 325 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months respectively by Sri Chiranji Singh, Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, by Judgment dated 12.7.1994. 2. The prosecution case is that when the daughter of appellant no.1 was uprooting some tori crops in the field of the informant an altercation took place between the parties in course of which the injured witnesses were assaulted by the accused persons. 3. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses 2 out of them P.W.1,2 and 3 had come to the place of occurrence on halla and saw the assault. P.W.5 is the father of the informant who is an eye witness and P.W.7 is the informant whereas P.W.4 is the doctor who examined the injured and opined that all the injured sustained were simple in nature. P.W.8 is also an eye witnesses on the factum of the occurrence whereas P.W.9 is the investigating officer. 4. The defence of the appellants was that on the date of occurrence an altercation also arose between the parties which had led to a free fight in between the parties. In some transaction some of the accused persons were also assaulted in respect of which certain documents were also proved by the defence. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties and in support of which various documents were brought on record by them to demonstrate this fact. Admittedly this occurrence took place in the background of active land dispute and animosity and there was a counter version of the occurrence which was denied by the prosecution witnesses. In absence of their explanation for the counter version the prosecution case would become unreliable. 6. I am inclined to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No.322/87 by the judgment dated 12.7.1994 are hereby set aside 3 and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from their liabilities of their respective bail bonds. The Patna High Court. The 1st April,2011 AnilKrSinha/N.A.F.R. ( Anjana Prakash,J.)