Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.334 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Muneshwar Mochi s/o Late Managar Mochi. 2. Jagdish Mochi. 3. Deo Sharan Mochi. Son of Muneshwar Mochi 4. Bishundhari Mochi son of Mangar Mochi resident of village Bagahi, P.S. Moffasil, Distt Gaya. ----------------- ---------------- Appellants Versus STATE OF BIHAR ---------------------------------- Respondent ************* For the Appellants :- Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Aditya Narayan Sinha, A.P.P *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************ Anjana Prakash, J. Appellants have been convicted under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by the Shri Akhilesh Chandra 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 407 of 92/1 of 1993 by a judgment dated 15.9.1994. The prosecution case is that on 26.6.1991 the accused persons came on disputed fields of the informant and tried to stop the irrigation on account of which a dispute arose between themselves in which transaction the appellants assaulted the 2 deceased due to which he later died. After close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and further appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were also charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted by the said charge and convicted as mentioned about. During the trial as many as 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in which P.W. 6, the informant himself whereas P.W. 2 is the daughter of the informants and P.W.3 is the wife of the informant who during cross examination proved to be not eye witnesses whereas P.W. 1 is also not eye witness to the occurrence. The Doctor was examined as P.W. 7 who found several injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W. 5 is on factum of occurrence. The defence of the appellant was that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of fall. However this plea has to rejected in view of the evidence of the doctor from which it is apparent a number of 3 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. On going through the evidence of P.W 6 I find that admittedly the occurrence had taken place on 26.06.1991 but the deceased had died on the next day and F.I.R. was instituted thereafter. There is no explanation as to why no information was given immediately after the occurrence and the case was instituted only after the death of the deceased. Admittedly, there is land dispute between the parties and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out on such count. Moreover I find many vital discrepancies in the evidence of the material witnesses. In the result this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.9.1994 passed by Shri Akhilesh Chandra 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 407 of 92/1 of 1993 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of liability of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Patna/ Dated, the 4th April, 2011/ NAFR/Prakash/- ( Anjana Prakah , J.)