CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2 OF 1993 1. Uchit Bind, Son of Ramphal Bind 2. Bahadur Bind Son of Tanik Bind 3. Ashish Bind, Son of Ramcharan Bind 4. Bindo Bind Son of Tanik Bind 5. Bishundeo Bind, Son of Ram Balak Bind 6. Sadhu Bind, Son of Meghnath Bind 7. Bhola Bind Son of Ramphal Bind 8. Narayan Bind, Son of Kari Bind 9. Poli @ Police Bind Son of Kari Bind 10. Toral Bind Son of Banarsi Bind 11. Tanik Bind @ Bhagat Son of Lalo Bind 12. Tanik Bind Son of Manu Bind 13. Shivadani Bind Son of Chandra Bind All residents of Village- Manuchak, Bind Toli, Police Station- Surajgarha, District-Munger --------------------------------------------------(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR------------------------------------(Respondent) Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.1992 passed by Sri Prabhunath Prasad, 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No.562/83 arising out of G.R.Case No.1303 /80 For the Appellants :Mr. Mahendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakas ,J This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Munger dated 22.12.1992, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition Appellant no.19 was convicted for the offence - 2 - under Section 436 whereas Appellant nos.9, 11, 12 and Appellant no.13 have been convicted for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant nos.1, 4, 7,9,15 and Appellant no.16 died and the appeal is abated in their regard. 2. The case of the prosecution, according to Firangi Yadav , is that on 1.12.1980 at 4.30 P.M. when he and his men were ploughing and were engaged in agricultural work , accused persons came upon the land and by some of the accused persons assaulted the prosecution party . Appellant Shivdani Bind set the thatched houses on fire. The case was investigated and, thereafter, chargesheet was submitted and charges were framed for offences under Sections 148,149,379, 411 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons, whereas Appellant nos.9,11,12 and Appellant no.13 were charged for offence under Section 323 and Appellant No.19 was charged for offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution in all examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses in its support and out of them Firangi Yadav (P.W.14), the informant, has been declared hostile by the prosecution, whereas P.Ws 1,2,3,9 and P.W.12, deposed as eye witnesses. P.Ws.4, 5 and - 3 - P.W.6 have been tendered whereas P.W.9 is the doctor who examined the injured. P.W.7 and P.W.10 are police officials and P.W.11 is Block Agriculture Officer who was deputed at the place of occurrence to maintain peace and has been declared as hostile by the prosecution. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4.Going through the evidence of P.Ws 1,2,3,7,8,9,10,11,12 and P.W.13 , I find that the prosecution case is well supported and all of them have more or less on all materials/particulars have supported the factum of the prosecution case having come upon the land of the prosecution and variously assaulted them. The Doctors (P.W.8) vide Exts.2 to 2/2 have also supported the fact that P.Ws 2 and 3 had been injured. 5. Some efforts have been made by the defence by bringing some documents on record to prove that actually the land was in a bona fide manner claimed by them and in fact the assault if at all had taken place was in defence of the right of the private defence of the property. However , the factual aspect of the case which were well established from the evidence of the Investigating Officer ( P.W.13) who visited the place of occurrence and found the same to be in possession of the prosecution. Moreover, he also found ploughing on the place of - 4 - occurrence and the factum of burning thatched hut at the place of occurrence. In this view of the matter, I am unable to appreciate the submission of the appellants that the prosecution on facts has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 6. In my opinion, on going through the evidence and on perusal of the records I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no scope of interference in the matter. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. However, since the occurrence is of the year 1980 and the appellants have remained in custody for some period the sentence is modified to the extent which has already been undergone by the present appellants. This appeal fails and is dismissed with the modification stated above. ( Anjana Prakash, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 9th October,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ NAFR