IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) NO.396 OF 2009 1.BABLOO YADAV, 2.BALLI YADAV, 3.BILASH YADAV, 4.ARJUN YADAV, 5.JAGO MANJHI, 6.MUNNA YADAV, 7.MANTU YADAV & 8.GOPAL YADAV VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the appellants:- Sri Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State:- Sri Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. 04. 07.07.2011. This appeal was directed by order dated 21.05.2009 to be listed under the heading for orders after two years of its admission so as to be finally disposed of. I have heard both the parties. I do not want to narrate the prosecution story and want simply to record that the learned trial Judge has recorded in paragraph-19 of his judgment that P.Ws.3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 were not trustworthy as they had arrived at the scene of occurrence after the occurrence was over and had seen the injured P.W.7 Upendra Rana lying injured there. However, the trial Judge has recorded in the same paragraph that the evidence of P.W.7 Upendra Rana could not be brushed aside lightly because he was injured. However the trial court has recorded, “it cannot be ruled out that he may have implicated some other enemies who may not have taken part in the occurrence or may not be at the place of 2 occurrence at the time of alleged occurrence”. If this could be the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge then he was doubting the very veracity of the prosecution case as regards the participation of the accused persons in commission of the offence. The learned trial Judge has recorded in his judgment that the informant had filed several cases against many persons as was appearing to him from Ext-A series which were documents showing the institution of cases at the instance of P.W.7. There was land dispute for a pond and the fishing right of the parties over it between the parties and proceedings under Chapter-VIII of the Cr.P.C. appears initiated and pending on the day of occurrence. The contention was that there was no clear picture on question of possession which was not decided by any competent authority or by any court and in that view if the appellants were going over the pond under a bonafide belief that they had a right to fish in it, then any interference might be repelled by use of force as may appear from the general exception chapter of IPC 3 specially the provisions relating to exercise of right of private defence. It was contended further that the injuries have been found to be superficial and minor; in fact there was no perceptible injury found on the person of P.W.7 as no doctor had come to prove the injury report. Merely because there was some story of assault propounded by P.W.7. The trial court was going to record the findings under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC. It was contended that the very conviction of the appellants appears completely against the principles of law. It appears from paragraph-17 of the judgment that the defence had produced before the trial Judge at least three documents which indicated as if the informant were a veteran litigant who had filed several cases against many persons which were pending in courts. It was not disputed that there was some clash of interest between the parties for the pond which was the place of occurrence and the right of the parties to fish in its water. The learned trial Judge found the witnesses except P.W.7 not trustworthy. As regards the informant P.W.7, 4 it is true that the trial Judge has placed reliance upon his evidence, but that reliance only goes to show that he had been assaulted by the appellants. That story of assault does not get further corroborated by oral evidence. There is no further semblance of support, like, the opinion of a doctor or any independent person that the assault had been administered to P.W.7 in the manner as alleged. In spite of these findings the learned trial Judge himself appears recording a finding that the probability might be there that P.W.7 might have implicated his enemies falsely who could have been innocent. If this could be the finding then this court does not have any hesitation in recording that the mind of the learned trial Judge was not free from doubt when he was evaluating the merits of the prosecution case and evidence. If the doubt was reasonably lingering in the mind of the learned trial Judge then in that background the conviction of the appellants for whatever offence could not be sustained. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The conviction of the appellants and the order directing them 5 to be released on execution of individual bonds under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act both are hereby set aside. The direction of release of the appellants on exemption of bonds as also the sentence imposing some amount of fine to be released from them are hereby set aside. If any amount of fine has been deposited by any of the appellants that shall be re-reimbursed to him. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)