Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.232 of 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.8.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.52 of 1989/ 78 of 1997] 1. Mahendra Thakur son of Late Ram Asray Thakur 2. Ram Padarath Thakur son of Saryug Thakur 3. Ram Dayal Thakur son of Ram Laxman Thakur, All the residents of village Premnagar Tola Bohari, P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt. Sitamarhi …………………….. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. J.N. Thakur, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant no.1 has been convicted u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years, whereas appellant no.2 has been convicted u/s.324/109 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and six months respectively and appellant no.3 has been convicted u/s.324/34 I.P.C. but given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. on executing bond of Rs.2000/- with two sureties of the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year by a judgment dated 5.8.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.52 of 1989/ 78 of 1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Anand Kishore Thakur is that on 24.7.1988 at about 7 A.M. when his brother Braj Kishore Thakur was returning after easing himself, he saw the accused persons encroaching 2 of their lands, at which he protested. The accused got enraged and appellant caught the hands of Braj Kishore Thakur, whereas mother of Mahendra Thakur caught hold the testicles of Braj Kishore Thakur and where after on the orders of Ram Padarath Thakur, appellant Mahendra Thakur inflicted a spade blow on the left shoulder of Barj Kishore Thakur. He then again inflicted spade blow which cut him on his head and the left shoulder. When the informant arrived there, he was assaulted by Ram Padarath Thakur with a lathi on his back. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 Ram Pratap stated that he was an eye witness to the occurrence and he saw that the appellants had variously assaulted Barj Kishore Thakur as well as the informant when he intervened. P.W.2 Rajdeo Thakur stated that when he was at his door, he heard hulla and then he ran to the field and saw the accused persons assaulting two injured, after which they were taken to Runisaidpur Hospital and later to Muzaffarpur Medical College & Hospital for further treatment. P.W.3 Anand Kishore Thakur, the informant of the case, reiterated what he has stated in the First Information Report and no infirmity could be pointed out from his evidence. P.W.4 Braj Kishore Thakur, the injured stated that the occurrence took place when he caught hold of the spade in which course, at which he was fell down on the ground and variously assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.5 Dr. Nawal Kishore Mishra, the doctor S.K.M.C.H, Muzaffarpur stated that 3 he found two injuries on the person of the injured, out of which one was caused by a sharp cutting weapon whereas the second by a hard blunt substance. He stated that the injury caused by sharp cutting weapon was grievous in nature whereas the injury caused by hard blunt substance was simple in nature. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer, who fully corroborated that he saw objective evidence at the place of occurrence. 4. It is no doubt true that P.W.1 is the uncle of the informant whereas P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the brothers but just because they are relatives it does not automatically mean that their evidence was fit to be rejected on ground of being partisan. On the contrary I find that they have well supported the prosecution case which is further corroborated by the objective evidence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer. 5. In view of such, I find no merit in the appeal. However, the substantive sentence of appellant nos.1 and 2 is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial since the occurrence is of the year 1988. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Patna High Court Dated, 18th July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )