Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 41 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 14.02.1996 passed by Sri Shreenarayan Chaudhary, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in S.Tr. No. 6/90/64/87. ************ 1. Latan Chaudhary, S/o Akalu Chaudhary. 2. Hira Chaudhary, S/o Prasadi Chaudhary. 3. Musafir Chaudhary, S/o Prasadi Chaudhary. 4. Girani Chaudhary, S/o Latan Chaudhary. 5. Bisheswar Chaudhary, S/o Prasadi Chaudhary. All resident of Village-Bheriya, P.S.-Warisaliganj, District-Nawadah. ……(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Tanik Ram, S/o Amrit Ram, resident of Village-Bheria, P.S.-Warasaliganj, Dist.-Nawadah. -------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 IPC whereas the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have been sentenced to RI for three years and the rest have been sentenced to RI for five years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in S.Tr. No. 6/90/64/87 by a judgment dated 14.02.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 9 is that on 17.07.1986 at about 8 A.M. a quarrel took place between the appellants and informant whereafter in the evening when Doman Ram was going to ease himself the accused persons tried to assault him and when he and P.W. 8 went to pacify the matter they were variously assaulted. 3. The defence of the appellants was that in fact on the same day a free fight had taken place between the 2 parties in which the appellants had also been assaulted for which Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 85/86 Exhibit-A was instituted. 4. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 and P.W. 10 are formal witnesses whereas P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are the three injured witnesses and P.W. 3 is a witness on the point of occurrence and P.W. 4 is a tendered witness. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are alleged eye witnesses and P.W. 7 is the Doctor who examined the three injured. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that there is complete denial of the fact that there was a counter version of this occurrence which renders the prosecution case suspicious. Moreover, on appreciation of the injuries sustained by three injured it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/149 IPC. In the result, the conviction of the appellants is converted to one under Section 323 IPC and the sentence is modified to the one that they have already undergone during trial. 6. With the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 28th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-