Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.93 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.277 of 1988] 1. Jharilal Rai son of Late Nathuni Rai 2. Shital Rai son of Late Suraj Rai 3. Manager Rai son of Shankar Rai 4. Bhisham Rai @ Bishma Rai son of Jharilal Rai 5. Janardan Rai son of Shital Rai, All are residents of Village Masaha, Police Station Marhowrah, District Saran …………………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, Addl. P.P. --------- 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/ss.307/109 and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and one year respectively, whereas appellant nos.2 and 3 have been convicted u/ss.307 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and two years respectively and appellant nos.4 and 5 have been convicted u/ss.147 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year under each count by a judgment dated 27.3.1997 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.277 of 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Kunkun Rai (P.W.6) is that on 15.7.1987 at 9 A.M. the she-buffalo had grazed the paddy seedlings of the 2 informant and, therefore, the informant impounded the cattle and when the appellants demanded for release, he refused to do so. At this he was variously assaulted by the appellants. 3. The defence of the appellants was that on the same day when accused Jharilal Rai protested at the cutting ridge of his field, he was assaulted by the informant and others, for which a fard beyan was instituted by appellant Jharilal Rai numbered as Mohrowrah P.S. case No.82 of 1987. 4. During trial, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses to prove its case, whereas the defence also examined two witnesses in support of their defence. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 is a formal witness, whereas P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the injured and P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have claimed to be the eye witnesses. 5. On going through the evidence of these material witnesses, I find that all of them denied the factum of the counter version which raises a legitimate suspicion in the mind of the court that the true version of the occurrence has not been brought before the court by the prosecution. 4. Under the circumstances, on this plea alone, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 27.3.1997 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in 3 Sessions Trial No.277 of 1988 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 29th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )