IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.12 of 2011 THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- APPELLANT Versus 1.SHANKAR MANDAL SON OF RAM RATAN MANDAL 2.JAGDEO MANDAL SON OF KHATAR MANDAL 3.THAKAI MANDAL SON OF NEBA LAL MANDAL 4.RAM SEWAK MANDAL SON OF RAM RATAN MANDAL 5.KAMESHWAR MANDAL SON OF THAKAI MANDAL 6.BHUBNESHWAR MANDAL SON OF BRIHASPATI MANDAL ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELAHA,P.S.PHULPARAS, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ---- RESPONDENTS ------- 02/ 06.05.2011 Heard Mr.Atul Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State-appellant. The grievance of the appellant is with regard to inadequacy conviction passed by Sri Parmanand Maurya, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.Vth, Madhubani on 15.05.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2006 whereby the respondents-accused were found guilty under Sections 147,148,323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were convicted under Sections 147,148, 323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing them, they were released after giving due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Submission is that the prosecution was able to prove the charge under Sections 2 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons but the trial court has committed error in not convicting them under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the submission and perused the judgment. The evidences of the witnesses on the record are not such upon which the conviction can be passed under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code were made by the prosecution, then the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the charges in the manner as alleged beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. When the prosecution failed to prove the charges in the manner as alleged, then the trial court had no option but to take alternative view. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the respondents- accused under Sections 147,148,323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and released them after giving due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Occurrence is of the year 1981 and on 3 the date of judgment i.e. 15.05.2010 the age of two appellants namely, Shankar Mandal and Ram Sewak Mandal were assessed as 40 years whereas Jagdeo Mandal and Kameshwar Mandal were assessed as 25 years and 35 years respectively. It means the above accused were not major on the date occurrence and the accused persons have suffered rigors of prosecution for about three decades. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons under Sections 147,148,323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no material to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As the appeal itself has been dismissed, there is no need to go into the detail of the limitation petition. Accordingly, Limitation petition is also dismissed. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)