Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.379 OF 1994 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 699 of 1989) 1. RAMASHANKAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAMESH PANDEY 2. AWADHESH PANDEY, SON OF LATE KAMTA PANDEY 3. DAYA SHANKAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE SURESH PANDEY ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHURAMANPUR, P.S. BUXAR (T), DISTT. BUXAR. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------RESPONDENT For the Appellants : M/s. Kamal Nayan Choudhary, Sr. Adv. Subhash Chandra Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: Heard. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No. 2 has further been convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 699 of 1989 by a Judgment dated 5.12.1994. The case of the prosecution is that when the Informant found the accused persons cutting the ridge of his field and amalgamating it in their own land, he protested at 2 which Appellant Awadhesh Pandey gave a Garasa blow on his head. When PW-2 came to intervene, Appellant Rama Shankar Pandey gave a Garasa blow on his head whereafter he was also assaulted by Appellant Daya Shankar Pandey with lathi. PW-3 the other brother of the Informant was assaulted by accused Vijay Shankar Pandey whose trial was separated on account of him being a Juvenile. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case out of whom PW-6 and 7 are formal witnesses who have proved the First Information Report, Fardbeyan, case diary and the eight prescriptions issued by Dr. P.N. Rai. PW-5 is the Doctor who examined the injuries of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 whereas the rest of the witnesses are on the point of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. It appears that PW-4 was not named in the First Information Report and he has conceded that he came to the place of occurrence after the assault and that there were serious litigations between him and the accused persons. PW-5 the Doctor who examined PW-2 opined that the injuries sustained by PW-2 was by the accused by hard blunt substance and similarly, the injury on PW-1 was also not said to have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. Evidently, there is conflict between the ocular and medical evidence. The fact that there was active land dispute between the parties cannot be denied since a number of documents 3 have been brought on record by the defence to prove this fact as also the genesis of the occurrence is on account of land dispute. On consideration of the medical evidence which is in direct conflict with the ocular evidence and the fact that there was land dispute between the parties, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In view of such, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 699 of 1989 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 6th April, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)