Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 222 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.8.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1986 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa. ****** 1. AMARENDRA SINGH @ AMAR SINGH S/O LATE ANANT SINGH 2. NARENDRA SINGH @ MANTUN SINGH S/O ANIRUDH SINGH 3. BIRENDRA SINGH @ BIREN SINGH S/O ANANT SINGH 4. ANIRUDH SINGH @ ANIRUDH PD. SINGH S/O LATE DALA SINGH 5. SANJAY SINGH @ MUNNA SINGH S/O AMRENDRA SINGH ALL R/O VILLAGE- AMARPUR, P.S. SONBARSA KUTCHERY, DISTRICT- SAHARSA ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Adv. : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh : Mr. Anil Kr. Upadhayay For the State : Gulnar Begum, APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant nos. 1, 2 & 3 have been convicted under Section 148, 326, 379 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, 3 years and 6 months respectively whereas appellant nos. 2 and 4 have been convicted under Section 147, 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months respectively as also the appellant no. 5 has been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1986 by the judgment dated 21.8.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.6.1984 when he found the accused persons cutting his Mango tree on his fields he and his father protested him at which the accused persons abused them and also assaulted them with arrow and lathis on account of which he and his father were injured. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 17 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is formal witness, P.W. 12 and 16 have been tendered whereas P.W. 13, 15 and 17 have been declared hostile, P.W. 11 is the informant whereas P.W. 10 is his father and both of them have supported the fact that they were assaulted by the appellants. P.W. 2 is also on the factum of occurrence and has supported both these two witnesses, P.W. 3, 5 and 6 have also supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses, P.W. 14 who is the doctor stated that he had removed arrow from the right arm of Yugal Bhagat the father of the informant whereas P.W. 7 also a doctor stated that he had examined Yugal Bhagat and found two arrows putting in his arm. However, he was of the view that the injury was simple in nature. He had examined the informant and found five injuries but all simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. 4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses and the doctors, in my opinion no offence under Section 326 I.P.C. would be made out and therefore, the same is converted to one under Section 324 I.P.C. However, the conviction of the rest of the appellants under Section 147, 148, 323, 379 is maintained but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial under each court. 5. In the result the appeal is dismissed with the modifications stated above. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.