Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 78 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 389 Cr.P.C. ************ 1. Krishna Sonar @ Krishna Sao, S/o Modi Sao. 2. Tapeshwari Devi, W/o Krishna Sonar @ Krishna Sao. 3. Ganesh Sonar @ Ganesh Prasad @ Sao, S/o Krishna Sonar @ Krishna Sao. All R/o Village-Birampur, P.S.-Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to ten years RI whereas the appellants No. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to four years RI. In addition all the three appellants have been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to the injured and in default of which to further undergo sentence for a period of six months simple imprisonment. This order was passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 139 of 1987 by a judgment dated 24.05.1995. 2. The prosecution case is that on 25.06.1983 an altercation arose between the parties over a minor matter in course of which the appellant no. 1 threw acid on the informant on account of which he sustained injuries on his chest and hands. 2 3. The defence of the appellant was that in fact the present case was a counter-blast to the one instituted by them according to which acid had been thrown on the appellants due to which they were severely burnt and the four prosecution witnesses appearing against the appellants in the present case were accused in the said case. 4. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are tendered. P.W. 8 is formal, P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have deposed as eye-witness out of whom P.W. 6 is the informant. P.W. 7 is the Doctor who proved the injury report of the informant as Exhibit 2. 5. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 1 was Doctor who proved the injury reports as Exhibit A1 and A2 in relation to the injuries sustained by the three appellants. D.W. 2 has been examined to prove the facts of the counter First Information Report which had earlier been instituted by the appellants. Admittedly, P.W. 1 is the father of the informant whereas P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are his brothers. P.W. 3 is the own cousin of the informant and P.W. 5 is uncle. These witnesses have been arraigned as accused in the counter-case in which the allegation against them of throwing acid on the appellants. 6. On going through the manner of occurrence narrated by the prosecution witness, it appears that the injuries sustained by the informant could not have been caused deliberately but there is possibility of him having accidentally sustained the same in course of the occurrence 3 where the three appellants also received injuries. The prosecution has categorically denied the factum of the counter-version and the injuries sustained by the appellants. It was their bounden duty to explain the same and in absence of it, this Court is not ready to accept that the prosecution has brought the true version of the occurrence before the Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 24.05.1995 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 139 of 1987 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 22nd April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-