Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.131 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 26th June, 1996 passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, Additional Session Judge-II, Nawadah in Session Trial No. 708 of 1984 / 31 of 1989. 1. Kishori Raman Prasad, Son of Late Badri Lal. 2. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Nand Kishore Prasad. 3. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Nand Kishore Prasad. 4. Anuj Kumar Sinha, Son of Shri Kishsori Raman Prasad. All resident of village Paroria, P.S. – Sirdala, District – Nawadah. …….. Appellants. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …….. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants :- Sri Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 2, namely, Sunil Kumar Sinha has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years while the other appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant, namely, Sri Kant Sinha that on 26.10.1992 at about 12 noon asked the informant to follow them to the Durga Asthan for drama on the eve of Durga Puja and when he reached at the Durga Asthan and it is alleged that Nand 2 Kishore, Sudhir, Ravindra Kumar and Dineshwar Lal surrounded him and on the command of Sudhir Prasad threw acid on his head by causing injury. 3. On the fardbeyan the F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted and after submission of the charge- sheet a cognizance was taken where after the charge was framed for offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Trial proceeded and during the trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. One witness, namely, Ram Swarath Prasad is a court witness and the defence also adduced the evidence after the statement of the accused persons at the trial. Altogether four witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and after considering the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction and sentence was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, has challenged the order of conviction on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence as some witnesses disclose the place of occurrence as Varamdah of Nand Kishore Prasad and some stated at Durga Asthan nor has established the manner of occurrence as well as the defence has also received injury on their person by acid which has not been explained by the prosecution and hence, the defence is entitled for benefit of doubt. 3 5. Learned counsel for the prosecution, however, read the evidence of P.W. 1 who stated that the occurrence took place by taking the victim to the Varamdah of Nand Kishore Prasad whereas in the fardbeyan the place of occurrence is Durga Asthan where idol was installed. However, it has come in evidence that the Varamdah of Nand Kishore Prasad and Durga Asthan is so proximate that it does not indicate different place but some may say it that occurrence took place at Varamdah of Nand Kishore Prasad or some may say it at Durga Asthan and hence, there is no different in the place of occurrence. 6. However, the next point raised is Ext. B series the injury report regarding the burn injury on the person of accused persons. However, the trial court has taken into consideration these facts and found the injury on accused is superficial and also considered that the allegation on the witnesses having caught hold of the victim while pouring acid may have got the sprinkle of acid to cause the injury, hence, explain the injury on the person of accused. 7. Having regard to the fact that the prosecution found injury on the body of the informant and others to the extent of 65%, 30% and 27% respectively and hence, when the injury are only small and having taken into consideration that they might have been the result of the fact that the accused persons were catching hold of the informant and while the acid was being poured/sprinkled on the head and others, then these 4 accused also had sprinkled of the acid in their body due to which burn were caused on their body and hence taking into consideration the entire evidence, I do not find any reason in disturbing the finding of conviction recorded by the learned lower court. 8. However, so for the next question for consideration regarding the order of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were, during trial, under imprisonment and so far there is allegation against Sudhir Prasad to have poured the acid but the other appellants had only been alleged to have been caught hold of the victim and since the offence is of the year 1982 and 28 years has already elapsed from the date of occurrence and during the period the appellants suffer from agony of prosecution and hence, have suffered much as their litigation for such a long period and hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the order of sentence recorded by the court below is hereby set aside and the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone by them during trial and hence, with this modification, this appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 23rd June, 2011. NAFR/Kundan.