Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 308 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judg-VII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 1000 of 1992) ------------ 1. ARUN GOPE @ ARUN RAI, SON OF NASIB LAL SINGH 2. RAMESH PRASAD, SON OF ANANDI MUNSHI 3. RAJ BANSHI SINGH, SON OF NASIB LAL SINGH 4. SHYAM NARAIN SINGH, SON OF RAMJEE RAI 5. TEJ NARAIN SINGH, SON OF RAMJEE RAI 6. MAHESH PRASAD, SON OF JAIRAM SINGH 7. JAGAT PRASAD, SON OF RAMJEE RAI 8. HARI BILASH SINGH, SON OF JAGDISH RAI 9. SURENDRA SINGH, SON OF JAIRAM SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SUKULPUR, P.S. FATWAH, DISTT. PATNA. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. ---------- For the Appellant : None. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count whereas the rest o the Appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count by a judgment dated 29.9.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 1000 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution according to PW-1 Arjun Kumar is that on 2.3.1992 at about 10.20 P.M. he was having dinner at his residence, the accused persons came to his house and started abusing Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.308 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 2 him and took him away and assaulted with butt of pistol. After the assault, the accused persons fled away. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom PW-1 is the Informant injured whereas PW-2 Shyam Babu Rai and PW-3 Rajendra Singh have been declared hostile. PW-4 Ramjatan Singh is a hear-say witness whereas PW-5 Saraswati Devi is the mother of the Informant and also an eye witness. PW-6 is the Doctor who examined the injuries on the Informant (PW-1) 4. The defence of the Appellants was a total denial and false implication. They suggested that in fact, the Informant Arjun Kumar had been injured on account of having been caught while committing theft of crops. 5. From the analysis of the evidence, I find that apart from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 who belong to the same family, there is not a single witness to corroborate the prosecution case. Thus in my opinion it would be unsafe to rely on the prosecution case since admittedly the assault took place in an open area and there was no explanation as to why no independent witness was examined. 6. In view of such, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 1000 of 1992 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge VII, Patna, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.