CRIMINAL APPEAL No.213 OF 1993 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1993 passed in Sessions Trial No.567 of 1988 by Sri P.N.Yadav, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna] ******** 1. NANDU SINGH 2. LALLAN SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH 3. ANIL SINGH SON OF NANDU SINGH 4. MANOHAR SINGH SON OF LATE DARBARI SINGH 5. SHAMSHER SINGH @ SHAILESH SINGH SON OF NANDU SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KANDAP, P.S. GAURI CHAK, DISTRICT PATNA ---------------------Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR----------------------------Respondent ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants are aggrieved by their conviction for the offences under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Patna in Sessions Trial No.567 of 1988 by a judgment dated 23.7.1993. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 3.8.1987 at 9 A.M. while the informant (P.W.11) was ploughing the fields, the accused persons variously armed came upon the lands and assaulted. The prosecution to prove its case examined fourteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, - 2 - P.W.9 and P.W.11 are injured and eye-witnesses, whereas P.W.10 is also an eye-witness though not injured. There is no manner of doubt that both the parties had claimed plot No.1732 to be in their possession and in fact a Partition suit had also been instituted to assert their claims. There is also material on record to show that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in respect to the aforesaid plot No.1732 was also going on between the parties. Under the circumstances, it is evident that there was a bonafide land dispute between the parties and all the witnesses examined are interested being family members or Bataidars of the informant. Even though the appellant no.1 was charged for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., the trial court on finding the prosecution evidence totally wanting acquitted the appellant no.1 of the charge. On going through the evidence of the eye- witnesses, there is material contradiction in their evidence and on a careful scrutiny it does not inspire confidence. Moreover from the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that even though there was no intervening circumstance, the appellants did not resort to any more harm than was sustained by the injured and from the facts of the case, it is difficult to arrive at a finding that it is a case u/s.307/34 I.P.C. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that the appellant no.1 - 3 - was also injured and admitted in the Hospital for an occurrence which had taken place on the same day. In the absence of any explanation by the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by him, there is a possibility that the prosecution has not come out with the true narration of the occurrence. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 22nd December, 2009. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )