IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.906 of 2010 BHUPENDRA NARAIN SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- . 11.01.2011 With the consent of both sides, this appeal was heard at the stage of admission. The five appellants in this appeal, out of whom two are ladies stand convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. As to the quantum of the sentence, any sentence of substantive imprisonment has not been awarded and the appellants have been released on probation bond of Rs. 2000/- for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The prosecuting case was that the appellant/accused had thrown some garbage in front of house of informant. The informant protested to it whereupon it is said that the appellant Bhupendra Narain Singh and his wife appellant Anusheela Singh entered into the house and they dragged the informant Dhruvnath Trivedi out of the house. Then it was alleged that the appellant Bhupendra Narain Singh came with a country made pistol and he assaulted the informant on his head with the butt of the pistol causing bleeding injury. It was also alleged that two ladies accused assaulted the informant with lathi. Witnesses were examined by prosecution. Considering the evidence, the learned trial court considered at para 12 of the trial court’s judgment that the appellants had earlier filed three criminal cases against the informant/prosecution party in which 2 they were convicted by the trial court and Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1999 was pending before the Sessions Judge, Chapra. Therefore, the learned trial court came to find that there was long standing enmity between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that due to enmity these appellants have been implicated falsely in the case. Referring the evidence of P.W. 4 Sarvesh Kumar Trivedi who was the son of the informant as discussed in para 12 of the trial court’s judgment it was pointed out that this witness has deposed that appellant Bhupendra Narain Singh had assaulted with the butt of pistol on the head of the informant causing bleeding injury and that the appellant Abhijit Singh @ Ankur Singh had also assaulted by means of Farsa causing injury on left elbow and right hand’s little fingure. Referring to injury report as discussed in para 17 of the trial court’s judgment, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that any such injury as is said to have been caused at the hands of the appellants Bhupendra Narain Singh and Abhijit Singh @ Ankur Singh was not at all found. In such view of the matters, it was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the manner of occurrence becomes highly doubtful. According to the prosecution witnesses, the appellants’ side already filed three criminal cases against the prosecution party and they had already been convicted in those cases. Thus there was deep enmity between the parties. No doubt, enmity is a double edged weapon but in the facts of the case, the weapon was sharper in the side of the prosecution party and they had all intention to 3 take revenge from the prosecution party, inasmuch as they already stood convicted in the criminal cases filed by the prosecution party. Therefore, the chances of false implication in the facts of the case cannot be ruled out. Considering of the facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants are acquitted of the charge. The judgment of conviction as passed by the trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Ravi/- ( C. M. Prasad, J.)