CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 718 OF 2004 ( In the matter of appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st August, 2004 passed by Shri Pradip Sah, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 496 of 1989/Trial No. 406 of 2004 arising out of Banka Police Station Case No. 228 of 1988) ******** 1. NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA NARAYAN SINGH 2. JAI KRISHNA SINGH, SON OF NARESH SINGH 3. SHIV KUMAR SINGH @ SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE GIRWAL NARAYAN SINGH 4. MADAN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BANGESHWAR SINGH 5. BAMESHWAR SINGH, SON OF NATHO SINGH 6. MURARI SINGH, SON OF BAMESHWAR SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAINIA, POLICE STATION BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA……………………………………………..…………….APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellants, six in numbers, have challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 496 of 1989/Trial No. 406 of 2004. As far as appellants 1 to 4 are concerned, charges were framed under Sections 2 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code which was altered to Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bameshwar Singh and Murari Singh, appellant nos. 5 and 6 were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court heard the case on the point of sentence and awarded the benefit of Section 360 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released the appellant on bail, binding them to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the mean time to keep the peace and good behaviour. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the all the appellants are in Government service and there are no complaints against them. The cause of the occurrence was a dispute with respect to the stealing of a goat which was kept for offering to the Goddess Durga on the eve of marriage of the daughter of the informant. Most of the injuries were simple in nature. The doctor in this case has not been examined to prove that grievous injuries were inflicted which has caused prejudice to the appellant. It appears that a counter case was also filed in which the informant’s side was acquitted vide Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993. There are no overt acts attributed against the 3 appellants 1 to 4 except to say that they were members of unlawful assembly. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that no specific allegation has been attributed to appellants 1 to 4 and the injuries are said to be inflicted by the appellant Bameshwar Singh have not been proved before the Trial Court. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that not only the appellants have maintained a good behaviour but also they are entitled to be acquitted in this case as the allegations are not proved and doubt has been created with respect to the very genesis of the occurrence. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. In any event, this appeal has become infructuous. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) Patna High Court April 21, 2009 N.A.F.R./Anand