Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.84 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.3.1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.290 of 1989/ 123 of 1992] 1. BECHAN RAI SON OF JHANMAN RAI 2. FAUJDAR RAI SON OF BECHAN RAI 3. LAL BABU RAI SON OF BECHAN RAI 4. RAM BABU RAI SON OF JADU RAI 5. JADU RAI SON OF JHAMAN RAI 6. FONU RAI SON OF GOVIND RAI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RAMPUR SHYAM CHANDRA, POLICE STATION RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ------------------------- Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------------------------- Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Devendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants are aggrieved with the judgment dated 16.3.1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.290 of 1989/ 123 of 1992, by which he has convicted the appellant no.2 u/s.307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for 5 years and addition to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of which further sentenced to R.I. for one year. He has also been convicted u/s.148 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I., whereas the appellant nos.1, 3 to 6 are convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default of which to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months R.I. and they are - 2 - sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/s.147 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21.8.1988 at about 6 A.M. the informant noticed that Palani had been fixed on the disputed lands by the accused persons and when he protested, he was assaulted by the appellant no.3 with lathi and thereafter appellant no.2 also gave a garasi blow on his head. When P.W.3 and P.W.6 came to save him, they were also assaulted. The further allegation is that the accused persons also committed theft from his house. The case of the defence is that in fact P.W.6, the informant, had taken a sale deed from one Prasu Rai, which land had been earlier purchased by the appellants from one Sohagia Devi and when the informant could not take possession of the land, the present case was instituted to pressurize them into vacating the land. The further case is that for the same piece of land a civil litigation was going on between the parties and in support of the said stand the defence examined three witnesses and proved a number of documents. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the facts of the case no offence u/s.307 I.P.C. would be made out, since even though there was no intervening circumstance the informant and the others were spared their lives. The further submission is that it would not be a case of unlawful assembly since admittedly the occurrence took place over assertion of rights of the parties. - 3 - On going through the evidence on record as also the judgment of conviction, I find that not a single independent witness had been examined by the prosecution and in the background of land litigation it is not improbable that the accused persons may have been falsely implicated since admittedly the occurrence had taken place over assertion of the rights of the accused persons over a certain piece of land. In view of such, I am inclined to acquit the appellants of the charges. Hence this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants dated 16.3.1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.290 of 1989/ 123 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 29th March, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )