Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.152 of 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12th July, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, II, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No.524 of 1989/ 139 of 1995. *** 1. Sri Dhaneshwar Singh son of Sri Alakh Narain Singh, 2. Sri Shahdeo Pd. Singh son of Late Nirmal Singh, 3. Sri Bharat Sharma son of Chandrika Sharma, 4. Sri Shaligram Pathak son of Late Shiv Kumar Pathak 5. Sri Ram Naresh Prasad Singh @ Ram Naresh Prasad son of Late Maha Prasad Singh, 6. Satya Ranjan Mitra son of Late Vimla Charan Mitra, 7. Radhey Shyam Pd. Singh son of Late Ramawatar Prasad & 8. Surendra Pandey son of Sri Sachidanand Pandey All Assistant Teachers of Haridas Seminary, At & Police Station- Gaya, District- Gaya ….Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ….Respondent *** For the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under sections 147, 323, 337, 435 and 427 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, nine months, three months and three years under sections 147, 323, 337 and 435 Indian Penal Code respectively and no separate sentence was passed under section 427 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, II, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 524 of 1989/139 of 1995 by judgment dated 12th July, 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.1988 the Secretary and Members of the Managing Committee had punished some students for not attending the school in school uniform and some teachers for not attending the school in time and they all gathered on 28.04.1988 at 7 AM and started pelting stones and variously assaulted P.W. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. 2 3. During trial, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 9 to 14 are formal witnesses, whereas, P.W. 3 has been tendered. P.W. 1 and 2 as well as the informant (P.W.4) have been declared hostile and only P.W. 5, 7 and 8, the injured witnesses, supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 6 is the doctor, who examined the injured persons. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. 4. From the evidence of the three witnesses, I find that there was some kind of rivalry between the existing Managing Committee of the school and the accused persons as well as others for which several round of litigations had been fought between the parties. The main defence of the accused persons was that in fact the prosecution party had attempted to take over the management of the school which was resisted by the accused persons whereafter this occurrence had taken place. 5. Under the circumstances, when there was rival claims of the parties, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, who alone could have proved this fact as to which party was aggressor, becomes fatal to the prosecution and it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under different counts. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of their respective charges. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 21st June, 2011 NAFR/ JA/- .