Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 233 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 06.08.1997 passed by Sri S.N. Chaudhary, Special Judge, Nawada in Special (H) Case No. 65 of 1995. ************ 1. Jai Prakash Gupta, S/o Late Somar Sao Halbai. 2. Raju Jha, S/o Sri Babu Lal Jha. 3. Babu Lal Jha, S/o Late Raghunandan Jha. 4. Krishna Pd. Halbai, S/o Munshi Pd. Halbai. 5. Vijay Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Somar Sao Halbai. 6. Dayanand Halbai @ Bachu, S/o Shree Munshi Pd. Halbai. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 427, 448, 504 and 323 IPC and Section 3 (X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to RI for six months under all the counts and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the informant by the Special Judge, Nawada in Special (H) Case No. 65 of 1995 by a judgment dated 06.08.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Rajendra Prasad alias Rajendra Rajak is that he was running a medicine shop named as Shekhar Medical Hall in the house of the accused Jai Prakash Gupta. On 08.12.1992 there was a theft in his shop having been committed by the accused persons who were arrested on his report but were released later on. On 29.01.1993 the accused persons variously armed came to his shop and started abusing him and also ransacked his shop. 2 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined five witnesses out of which P.W. 3, Rajendra Prasad is the informant whereas P.W. 1, Daya Nand Ram. P.W. 2, Bigul Paswan and the Chaukidar is eye witness. P.W. 5, Yamuna Prasad is a formal witness whereas P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On behalf of the defence a document was proved which was a sale deed executed by the brother of Lakshman Sah in favour of accused Jai Prakash Gupta on 24.10.1991 to show that in fact the suit house belong to Jai Prakash Gupta. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the exhibits produced on behalf of the prosecution that the medicine shop of the informant was allegedly running in the house was claimed by both the parties. There was a tenant landlord differences between the parties and this occurrence took place in the background of the said dispute. In the facts of the case no offence under Sections 147 and 148 would be made out. The allegations against the appellants also do not make out a case punishable under Sections 504 and 353 since the ingredients are completely missing in the facts of the case. Also the occurrence is said to have taken place inside the shop of the informant and, therefore, even it is believed the insult was not done in public view. The appellants are thus acquitted also of the charge under Sections 3(X) SC/ST Act. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.08.1997 passed by the Special Judge, 3 Nawada in Special (H) Case No. 65 of 1995 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 18th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-