IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 675 of 2006 (Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9th August, 2006 in Sessions Trial No. 1641 of 1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IV, Saran at Chapra.) 1. Jagarnath Singh, S/o. late Dharmdeo Singh, 2. Ram Sagar Singh, S/o. late Dharmdeo Singh, 3. Parma Singh, S/o. Ram Sagar Singh, 4. Suresh Singh, S/o. Jagarnath Singh, 5. Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o. Ashok Singh, All r/o. Village- Bhawalpr, P.S. Marhowrah, District- Saran. ----------------------------------------(Appellants) WITH CR. APP (SJ) No.694 of 2006 Satish Singh @ Satish Kumar Singh, S/o. Sri Ramashish Singh, r/o. Village- Bhawalpur, P.S. Marhowrah, District- Chapra. -------------------------------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------------------(Respondents) For the appellants: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the informant : Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate. For the State: : Mr. Ajay Mishrra, Addl. P.P. (In Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006) Mr. Kapildeo Singh, Advocate. Mr. S.N. Prasad, Addl. P.P. (In Cr. Appeal No. 694 of 2006) PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, ------------ Hon’ble C.M. Prasad, J. The appellants stand convicted under Sections 323 & 447 of I.P.C. and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and R.I. for 2 one month vide judgment dated 09.08.2006 as passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- F.T.C.-IV, Saran at Chapra under S.T. No. 1641 of 1994. 2. The appellants faced the trial before the trial-court for charges under Sections 307/149 & 447 of I.P.C. The allegation on them was that at the night of 23.02.1993 at village Bhawalpur, P.S. Marhowrah while some rituals in connection with marriage ceremony was going on in the house of the informant the appellants came there and trespassed into the house and they also assaulted informant Raja Bahadur Singh and Raj Kumar Singh by means of dagger. 3. Prosecution examined three witnesses namely, P.W.5 Bahadur Singh informant, P.W.1 Indu Devi the wife of the informant and P.W.6 Mohan Singh the brother-in-law of the informant on the point of occurrence. The doctor and I.O. were not produced by the prosecution for their evidence before the trial-court. On consideration of the 3 evidence of above three eyewitnesses on the point of occurrence the learned trial-court found charges only under Sections 323 & 447 of I.P.C. proved against the appellants and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as above. 4. As to the five appellants relating to Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006 I.A. No.768 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of five appellants with an averment that they have compromised the case with the victims. A prayer has also been made in the I.A. that the offences under Sections 323 & 447 of I.P.C. being compoundable and since the offence have already compounded the five appellants namely, Jagarnath Singh, Ram Sagar Singh, Parma Singh, Suresh Singh & Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh have signed the compromise under the I.A. and their signature have also been identified by their counsel. The victim Raj Bahadur Singh has put his L.T.I. and another victim Ram Kumar Singh has put his signature which have been identified by their counsel. 4 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants under Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006 submits that the appellants have compromised their case with the two victims. 6. Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the two victims namely, Raj Bahadur Singh and Raj Kumar singh also submits that the case has been compromised with the appellants under Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006. The learned Addl.P.P. does not put any objection over the compromise arrived at between the parties. Considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances under which the offence was committed leave to compromise is granted. Thus, in view of the compromise as put under I.A. No. 768 of 2010 the five appellants under Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006 are acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 & 447 of I.P.C. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2006 stands allowed and the five appellant under the appeal are discharged of their obligations under the bail bonds executed by them. 5 7. So far Cr. Appeal No. 694 of 2006 relating to appellant/accused Satish Singh is concerned any compromise has not been filed. Learned counsel Mr. Kapildeo Singh appearing for the appellant submits that in absence of compromise this appeal has to be decided on merits. He also argued that the three witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.5 & P.W.6 as examined by the prosecution name some of the accused persons relating to Cr. Appeal No. 675 of 2006 alleging them to be the assailants but none of these witnesses has named appellant Shatish Kumar Singh as amongst the assailants. Learned counsel tried to go through the evidence of these three witnesses and he submitted that none of the witnesses has named appellant Satish Singh as assailant to the victims. The learned Addl.P.P. went through the evidence of these three witnesses and he also fairly conceded that none of the three witnesses who were examined on the point of occurrence has named the appellant Satish Singh amongst the assailants. Thus, in view of the 6 situation that appellant Satish Singh was not named by any witnesses as an assailant there was no ground of recording a conviction against him and accordingly passing the order of sentence as above. In such view of the matters, there being no ground for the conviction and sentence of appellant Satish Singh he is acquitted of the charge under Sections 323 & 447 of I.P.C. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No.694 of 2006 is allowed. Appellant Satish Singh is also discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 8. The two appeals are accordingly disposed of. Patna High Court, Dated, the 21th June, 2010 N.A.F.R./Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)