IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.3 of 2011 THE STATE OF BIHAR …………… APPELLANT. Versus 1. JAWAHAR YADAV. 2. RADHA DAS. 3. SHIV NANDAN YADAV. 4. SITA RAM YADAV ALL SONS OF NAKCHEDI YADAV. 5. DIN DAYAL YADAV, SON OF LATE NAKCHEDI YADAV. 6. SUKHDEO YADAV, SON OF GAYANCHAND YADAV. 7. BILAS YADAV, SON OF ANGAD YADAV. 8. HARI YADAV, SON OF MAHABIR YADAV. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KABIYAHI, POLICE STATION – SINGHESWAR, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. …………. RESPONDENTS. . ----------- 02/ 19.01.2011 This Govt. appeal has been filed with an application for condoning the delay of 186 days. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura dated 11.5.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1998. The trial court has acquitted the Respondents 1 to 8 from the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions trial has arisen out of Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 18 of 1989 instituted on the basis of fard-beyan of Sitaram Das, P.W. 4. The case of prosecution as disclosed in the fard- beyan of P.W. 4 is that the accused persons forcibly wanted to harvest the wheat crops grown by the informant. 2 They came in the field, which is about 4 ½ bighas, on 6.4.1989 at 6.00 O’clock variously armed with lathi, farsa, arrow, phatha with the mob of 40-50 persons. The brother of informant Chandeshwari Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and one villager Mahednra Yadav tried to restrain them from harvesting the wheat crops, on which Shiv Nandan Yadav (Respondent No. 3) gave a farsa blow on the head of Chandeshwari Yadav with an intention to kill him. Jawahar Yadav (Respondent No. 10 ordered for cutting both the hands of Chandeshwari Yadav and Shiv Nandan Yadav (Respondent No. 3) gave farsa blow on both the hands of Chandeshwari Yadav. Jawahar Yadav (Respondent No. 1) also assaulted Chandeshwari Yadav with lathi. He also assaulted Jagdish Yadav and Sita Ram Yadav (Respondent No. 4) assaulted Mahendra Yadav with farsa on his head and blood started oozing out from the injuries. All three injured persons were brought at Sivir. The further allegation is that accused persons looted away wheat crops worth Rs.5,000/-. The trial court considering the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5, who are injured witness, and the evidence of P.W. 4 Sitaram Das (informant) finally come to a 3 conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused persons. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses disclosed that there is a land dispute in between the parties and 7-8 cases are being contested in between the parties. The dispute in between the parties related to the Mahanti of Thakurbari. The trial court has found inconsistency and contradiction in between the evidence of the witnesses, who admittedly were interested witnesses, and the evidence of P.W. 6, who was the doctor, who had examined the injured witnesses and as per the injury report of Chandeshwari Yadav and Jagdish Yadav sustained simple injuries. So far Mahendra Yadav is concerned, his injury report was not produced before the trial court. Considering the discussion in the trial court, we do not find that any illegality has been committed by coming to this conclusion that there is no evidence for conviction of accused persons, it is a fit case for acquittal. The finding has been recorded by the trial court giving benefit of doubt to the named accused persons. We find that the approach of the trial court is in accordance with law. Considering the discussion in the impugned 4 judgment and the delay of 186 days in filing the appeal, we do not feel inclined to condone the delay since there is no merit in the appeal. This appeal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)