Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.131 of 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No.72 of 1987/ 263 of 1995] 1. Bholi Mahto, Son of Late Nathu Mahto, resident of village Suhpur Bettiah Dih, Police Station Chanpatia, District West Champaran 2. Ragho Mishra, Son of Late Basudeo Mishra 3. Gagandeo Mishra, Son of Late Khirodhar Mishra 4. Indradeo Mishra, Son of Indrasan Mishra 5. Subhandeo Mishra 6. Harihar Mishra, Both sons of Ragho Mishra, all residents of village Turhapatti, Police Station Chapatia, District West Champaran …………………….. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Murli Dhar, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant nos.1, 3 and 6 have been convicted u/s.324 and 148 I.P.C. and appellant nos.2, 4 and 5 have been convicted u/ss.323 and 147 and whereas the appellant nos.1, 3 and 6 have been directed to deposit a fine of Rs.700/-, the appellant nos.2, 4 and 5 have been directed to deposit a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of which further R.I. for three months and one month respectively by a judgment dated 25.4.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No.72 of 1987/ 263 of 1995. 2. By an order dated 16.5.1997 while admitting this appeal, this Court had directed to deposit the fine within a period 2 of two months, which presumably the appellants must have done on the direction of this Court and, therefore, in effect the appeal has almost become infructuous. 3. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.5 Israfil Mian is that on 16.12.1983 the accused persons variously armed came and assaulted him on account of land dispute between the parties. 4. During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined Ishrafil, the injured. P.W.2 is a formal witness, whereas P.W.3 Rahim Mian has supported the case of the prosecution as an eye witness but during cross examination he stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, he saw the informant injured and, therefore, evidently he was not an eye witness. P.W.4 Md. Hasim has also deposed as an eye witness and the manner of occurrence depicted by him is fully corroborated by the medical opinion. P.W.5 Ishrafil Mian, the informant, has stated that all the accused persons surrounded him and assaulted him, but he was not in a position to say as to who assaulted on which part. The doctor, P.W.6, found four injuries on the person of the informant, three of which was simple in nature whereas fourth was the grievous. 5. In the facts of the case relying on the evidence of P.W.5, who was further corroborated by P.W.6, the Trial Court convicted the appellants in the manner as alleged and I see no reason to interfere with the same. 3 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated, 15th July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )