Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 208 OF 1994 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.6.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 522/89/150/92 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, XI, Gaya. ****** 1. BABULAL PATWA S/O KARAM PATWA 2. MAHENDRA PRASAD @ MAHENDRA PATWA S/O BABULAL PATWA 3. JITENDRA PRASAD @ JITENDRA PD. PATWA S/O BABULAL PATWA ALL R/O MOHALLA- MANPUR, P.S. MUFASSIL, DISTRICT-GAYA ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Dinu Kumar Adv. 2. Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar-2 APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the judgment dated 14.6.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 522/89/150/92 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, XI, Gaya. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants came to the darwaza of the informant and variously assaulted the informant with lathi. Initially the case was instituted under Section 325 and 307 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 6 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 is the informant whereas the P.W.2 is his brother’s wife, P.W.3 is his mother and P.W.4 is the independent witness, whereas P.W.5 and 6 are the formal in nature, the I.O. has not been examined despite several efforts by the Trial Court. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 and 4, I find that even though P.W.1 had stated that the appellant no.1 had assaulted the informant with lathi but P.W.4 stated that the appellant no.1 was empty handed and he stated that appellant no.3 was armed with brick bat, P.W.3 also stated that she had been assaulted with the stone and, therefore it appears that the witnesses have materially contradicted each other. Undoubtedly the occurrence arose on account of dispute between ladies who were neighbors and in absence of any corroborative independent material by way of examination of the doctor and the Investigation Officer, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 5. In view of the discussions mentioned above, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentenced of the appellants passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, XI, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 522/89/150/92 are hereby set aside and the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 1st April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.