Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 5 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 19.12.1996 passed by Sri O.P. Sinha, District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 127/92. ************ 1. Ram Surat Mahto, S/o Ramashish Mahto. 2. Daroga Mahto, S/o Late Bhilotan Mahto. 3. Joginder Mahto, S/o Ram Surat Mahto. 4. Rajendra Mahto, S/o Ram Surat Mahto. 5. Mahangu Mahto, S/o Late Bhilotan Mahto. 6. Ashish Mahto @ Ramashis Mahto, S/o Badri Mahto. 7. Krishna Mahto, S/o Ram Suat Mahto. All resident of Village-Mohammadpur, P.S.-Baranhi, Dist.-Gopalganj. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year under each count whereas the Appellants No. 1 to 7 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years and three years respectively by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 127/92 by a judgment dated 19.12.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 8, Subhan Mian is that on 23.04.1991 the Appellant No. 1 had thrashed the wheat of the informant and some money was due against the informant and on 2 22.04.1991 the said Ram Surat Mahto went to demand the same he told him he would give it the next day and thereafter on the same night the accused persons came to the house of the informant and variously armed and assaulted him and his son. 3. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 were eye witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.W. 6 is the Doctor who examined the injuries on the person of the injured. P.W. 7 is the wife of the informant whereas P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W. 8, I find that he has asserted that there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending between the parties and, therefore, the story that the accused had in fact thrashed the wheat of the informant does not appear to be proved. Thus, the genesis of the occurrence is not trustworthy. P.W. 9 also did not find any objective evidence at the place of occurrence. 5. The defence raised a plea that the present case was in fact a counter-blast to the case instituted by Appellant, Krishna Mahto. The documents of which have been exhibited as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B and in the said transaction the Appellant, Krishna Mahto was grievously assaulted which fact is further proved by Exhibit-B. It appears that the prosecution 3 witnesses have specifically denied the factum of the counter-version and on this score alone the prosecution case becomes untrustworthy. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 19.12.1996 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 127/92 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 29th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-