Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 1997 dt.08-07-2011 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.161 of 1997 ------ Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.04.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1992. ------- ========================================================== 1. Sri Kishun Sah son of Chokat Sah, 2. Sitaram Sahu son of Bhajan Sahu, 3. Bhola Sahu son of Sitaram Sahu, 4. Motilal Sahu son of Sri Kishun Sahu, 5. Bajilal Sahu son of Sri Kishun Sah & 6. Briksha Sah son of Kalai Sah All resident of village- Majhawalia, P.S.-Kateya, District-Gopalganj .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ========================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. J. K. Singh, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) 1. Appellant nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under sections 148 and 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under each count, whereas, appellant no.2 has been convicted under sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under both count by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, by judgment dated 03.04.1997 in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Lal Muni Sah is that on 27.07.1990, when he was preparing his field for planting paddy the accused persons variously armed suddenly came there and it is said that appellant no.1 assaulted him with sword on his head, whereas, appellant no.3 shot an arrow at him and appellant no.4 assaulted him with a farsa on his right side of the ear Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 1997 dt.08-07-2011 2 and right elbow. When the informant fell down, the accused persons assaulted his brother Babu Ram Sah. It is specifically stated that appellant Brij Lal Sah assaulted him with a farsa on his head, whereas, appellant Briksha Sah assaulted him with an arrow on neck, waist and left thigh. Appellant Motilal Sah assaulted him with farsa on his right wrist. Rest of the accused persons assaulted the informant and his brother with Bhala and lathi. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 is a hearsay witness, PW 2, 3 and 4 are tendered, whereas, PW 5, 6 and 7 are eye witnesses out of which PW 5 is the informant. Neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined. 4. On going through the evidence of the informant Lal Muni Sah, I find that he has supported his fard bayan as to how the appellant had assaulted him. He further stated that he remained in the hospital for about twelve days but there is no evidence in this regard. In paragraph 7, he admitted that appellant Shri Kishun Sah had filed a counter case against him and others and he denied the fact that he had seen any injury on the person of the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that in fact paddy had been grown in the field by the accused persons and when he along with his men was trying to plough the field he was stopped by appellant Sri Kishun Sah on account of which appellant no.1 was assaulted with farsa and then the present occurrence took place. He, however, has admitted that there was land dispute between them. PW 7, the brother of the informant and also an injured narrated that the appellant Bhola Sah had shot 2-3 arrows on account of which he was injured, whereas, the appellant Sri Kishun Sah had gave a sword blow on the head of the informant. Appellant Briksha Sah is also said to have shot two arrows causing injuries on his nose and thigh. In his cross-examination, he denied to have seen any injuries on the person of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 1997 dt.08-07-2011 3 accused persons as also the fact that they were aggressor. However, he admitted the fact that he was accused in the counter case filed by the appellant no.1 Sri Kishun Sah. PW 6 Ram Awadh Pandey has stated that while he along with informant and his brother were ploughing their field the accused persons came there and assaulted the two injured in the manner stated by the informant. He denied the fact that the informant party was aggressor, but he admitted that there was land dispute between the parties. Thus, from the evidence of PW 5, 6 and 7, it is clear that they all have fully supported the factum of occurrence, but they have definitely suppressed the true version before the Court by denying the fact of injuries on the person of the appellants even while admitting that they were accused in the counter case. 5. On the basis of evidence on record and in absence of the evidence of the doctor and Investigating Officer, who were very important witness in the background of land dispute, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of their respective charges. The judgment and order of conviction dated 03.04.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1992 is hereby set aside. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 8th July, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-