Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 85 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.6.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1987/ 166 of 1994 by the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chapra. ****** 1. MUNESHWAR SINGH S/O SHEOBACHAN SINGH 2. BHIKHAM SINGH S/O LATE KAMALA SINGH 3. TUKAR SINGH S/O LATE KAMALA SINGH 4. SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE KAMALA SINGH 5. LALLAN SINGH S/O BHIKHAM SINGH ALL R/O SADHPUR CHHATAR, P.S.- DAUDPUR DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Ram Sagar Singh 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. The appellants have been convicted under Section 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and in addition appellant no.2 has also been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. whereas appellant nos. 3, 4 and 5 convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and 147 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed in that regard by learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1987/ 166 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.3.1984 the accused persons variously armed waylaid the informant and variously assaulted him which was witnessed by some other villagers who came at the spot. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses out of whom P.W.5 is the doctor who examined the informant and P.W.6 is the doctor, who x-rayed the injured whereas P.W. 10, 11 and 12 are the police officers who recorded the fard bayan and partly investigated the case respectively. P.W. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 are material witnesses out of which P.W.4 is the informant. 4. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the prosecution had charged on the house of appellant no.3 Tukar Singh and the assault was made right of private defence of person. 5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses i.e. P.W. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 I find that they are all relatives inter-se and no independent witnesses has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Further, I also find that they have completely denied the factum of the counter version which leads this court to the conclusion that in fact the prosecution had failed to bring the truthful version of the occurrence before the court. On this score alone the prosecution case is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1987/ 166 of 1994 by the judgment dated 13.6.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 18th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.