IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 175 0f 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.1996 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 367 of 1991. ------------ 1. CHANDRA DEO SINGH 2. KHURI SINGH @ SHYAM SUNDER KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE RAGHO SINGH 3. BABLOO SINGH SON OF INDRADEO SINGH 4. KIRAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAGHO SINGH 5. DASRATH SINGH @ DASO SINGH, SON OF LATE RAGHO SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MAHISONA, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTT. MUNGER. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. -------- For the Appellant : Md. Khurshid Alam, Adv. Md. Naseem Mukhtar, Adv. For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants No. 4 and 5 have been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Appellants No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code but no substantive sentence has been imposed on them and they have been required to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- to the Informant by a Judgment dated 17.6.1996 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 367 of 1991. 2 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant, Balmiki Singh, is that on 30.7.1990 scuffle took place between him and Appellant Chandradeo Singh on a dispute with regard to the purchase of land of his Aunt and later when he was going to buy fertilizer from the market and reached near orchard of one Chhathu Mistri, in course of exchange of words with Appellant No. 1, all the other Appellants came there with Farsa and thereafter, Appellant Kiran Singh assaulted him with Katta on his head and Appellant Dasrath Singh assaulted with Farsa on his head whereas Appellant Khuri Singh and Babloo Singh assaulted with lathi on back and shoulder. The witnesses came there and rescued him from further assault, but before the same, the Appellant Bablu Singh committed theft of Rs. 2,500/- which has been kept for buying fertilizer 3. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who is the Informant have deposed as eye witnesses. PW-4 is the Doctor who examined the injured and found six injuries on his person most of which were simple in nature. PW-5 is the son of the Informant who is a hear say witness and on the factum of occurrence. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, I find that they have fully supported the prosecution case and have corroborated each other on material particulars. Even PW-5 who is a hear-say witness has corroborated the prosecution case. There is no cogent reason to disbelieve their evidence on the point of manner of occurrence. The oral testimony of the witnesses finds 3 further supports from the Doctor’s evidence who found six injuries on the person of the injured. On close examination of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disagree with the conclusion that the time, place and manner of occurrence had been fully established by the prosecution and, therefore, finding no scope for interference, the conviction and sentence is maintained. 5. The fine if not already paid to the Informant, it shall be paid to the Informant/his family if the Appellants are still alive within four months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Trial Court. 7. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 5th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.