Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 152 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Suresh Singh, S/o Late Dwarika Singh. 2. Ramdeo Singh, S/o Late Ram Das Singh. 3. Gupteshwar Singh, S/o Dwarika Singh. 4. Vijay Singh alias Ranvijai Singh, S/o Late Shiv Nandan Singh. 5. Muna Singh, S/o Ran Vijay Singh. 6. Sumitra Devi, W/o Ramdeo Singh. 7. Bimla Devi, W/o Ranjvijay Singh. All R/o Village-Pakodia Bar, P.S.-Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, 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 323 IPC whereas the appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been sentenced to six months RI, the appellants No. 6 and 7 have been released after due admonition. Further the appellants No. 1 and 3 have been convicted under Section 147 and sentenced to RI for one year whereas the appellants No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years by a judgment dated 17.07.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 467 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.1991 when the informant found that the accused persons were trying to fix the certain pegs to which the informant protested they variously assaulted him and his 2 father. Initially the appellants were charged under Section 307 IPC but they were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are eye witnesses. P.W. 5 has been tendered whereas P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer who could not be cross-examined on account of his non-appearance. P.W. 8 is the Doctor who examined the injured. 4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that they are inter se related and highly interested. The prosecution has failed to bring on record the evidence of any independent witness and in absence of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer it is difficult to rely on the sole testimony of interested eye- witnesses. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 17.07.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in S.Tr. No. 467 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 5th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-