Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 111 OF 1996 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Rama Shankar Singh, S/o Dharmaraj Singh. 2. Prem Kumar Singh, S/o Rama Shankar Singh. Both resident of Village-Ujjain, Police Station-Darauna, District-Siwan. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the State : Miss Renu Kumari, 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 Section 324 IPC and 27 Arms Act and have been ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- for maintaining good conduct for a period of two years by the Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 20 of 1979 by judgment dated 02.04.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 7, Chandeshwar Singh is that on 25.10.1976 at about 8 P.M. when he along with his ploughman were going to survey his plot the accused persons arrived there and variously assaulted him as also they fired on account of which Ravindra Nath Singh, Sachchidanand Singh and Ganesh Singh were injured. Initially the appellants were charged under Section 307 IPC but they were acquitted of the charges. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 are the witnesses on the point of 2 occurrence whereas P.W. 6 is the Doctor who examined the injuries on three injured. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the prosecution party was the aggressor and a free fight had been taken place on account of a counter-case i.e. Daraunda P.S. Case No. 9/76 had been filed by them. On a plea of alibi D.W. 1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 were examined for proving the fact that appellant Prem Kumar Singh who was a practicing lawyer was not present at the place of occurrence whereas D.W. 4 and D.W. 5 have proved the alibi of the appellant No. 1, Rama Shankar Singh. 5. On going through the evidence on record, I find that none of the prosecution witnesses have explained the counter-version and on this score alone the prosecution case is fit to be set aside. 6. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 02.04.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 20 of 1979 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 24th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-