Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 31 OF 1994 Against the judgment and order dated 25.01.1994 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Lal, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 331/81. ************ 1. Lakshman Rai, S/o Sheodhari Rai. 2. Bharat Rai, S/o Sheodhari Rai. 3. Brahmchari Rai, S/o Ram Chandra Rai of Village- Hathopur. 4. Dinesh Singh @ Adalat Singh, S/o Ram Chandra Rai. 5. Ramashankar Singh, S/o Satya Narain Rai. 6. Dhruvnath Singh @ Dhrub Narain Singh. 7. Ram Chandra Rai, S/o Dig Vijay Rai. 8. Shambhu Nath Singh, S/o Ram Chandra Rai. 9. Shatrughan Singh @ Shatrughan Rai, S/o Sheodhari Rai. 10. Prabhunath Singh @ Prabhunand Rai, S/o Satya Narain Rai. 11. Ram Paras Singh @ Ram Paras Rai, S/o Satya Narain Rai. All are resident of Village-Hathopur, Police Station- Daraundha, District-Siwan. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. M.K. Khare, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No. 6 has been convicted under Section 307 IPC whereas Appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 307/149 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years under the said count. They have also been convicted under Sections 379 and 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for six months and one year respectively. The rest of the appellants have been convicted under Sections 379 and 149 IPC and sentenced to RI for six 2 months and one year respectively even while Appellant No. 7 was released on Probation of Offenders Act by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 331/81 by a judgment dated 25.01.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 3, Ramnaresh Rai is that on 29.03.1980 at about 11 A.M. while the informant was looking after his khalihan the accused persons variously armed came there and started to remove the khalihan and when he protested he was variously assaulted and also the wheat crops were looted away by the accused persons. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the witnesses on the point of occurrence whereas P.W. 4 is the Doctor who examined the injured and P.W. 5 is the son of the informant and formal in nature. P.W. 6 is also another formal witness. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it appears that there was some dispute over shifting of the khalihan and even the appellants were claiming the said land. P.W. 4 who examined the injured has given opinion on the X-ray plate of the injury on the informant but in absence of the primary evidence of the Doctor who conducted the said X-ray the same would not be legally admissible. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are witnesses of 3 the same family and seriously inimical to the appellants who were claiming the land in question. In the absence of the examination of the Investigating Officer, in the background facts of the case having been allegedly committed in active evidently, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants in the sole testimony of examined witness without objective corroboration. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 25.01.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 331/81 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 30th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-