Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 230 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.9.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1983 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan. ****** 1. RAMA NAND CHAUDHARY 2. NARAYAN CHAUDHARY BOTH S/O JAGARNATH CHAUDHARY 3. NARESH CHAUDHARY S/O RAMASHRAY CHAUDHARY 4. KHELARI CHAUDHARY S/O MAHADEO CHAUDHARY 5. RAGHO CHAUDHARY S/O ABHILAKH CHAUDHARY ALL R/O VILLAGE- SARSAR, P.S. SIWAN MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- SIWAN ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Adv. For the State : Mrs. Anita Singh APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment whereas the appellant nos. 3, 4, 5 have been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and in addition the appellant no. 1 has already been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. while the rest have been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and they all sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1983 by the judgment dated 18.9.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant P.W. 4 learnt that the accused persons were forcibly constructing a palani on their land they went there and protested at which the 2 accused persons got enraged and assaulted the informant and his father Timal Chaudhary with Farsa, Bhala and Lathi. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 is formal, P.W. 3 is hostile, P.W. 6 is the doctor who examined the injured and the informant Timal Chaudhary whereas P.W. 1 is inimical to the accused, P.W. 2 is the brother of the informant P.W. 4 whereas Timal Chaudhary examined as P.W. 5 on disputedly P.W. 2, 4, 5 belong to the same family whereas P.W. 1 is inimical in nature. 4. On going through the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses, it is evident that there is active land dispute between the parties and in absence of any independent witness, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of interested witnesses. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1983 by the judgment dated 18.9.199554 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 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.