Criminal Appeal No.21 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.2.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.98 of 1988] 1. SHANKAR SINGH 2. MADHUSUDHAN SINGH @ MASUDAN SINGH 3. SHIV BALAK SINGH @ SIVALAK SINGH 4. BAIJU SINGH, ALL SONS OF LATE ACHHEY LAL SINGH 5. NAWAL SINGH @ NAWAL KISHROE SINGH SON OF MADHUSUDAN SINGH 6. MITHILESH SINGH @ MITHELESH SINGH SON OF BAIJU SINGH 7. RAM ANEK SINGH @ RAMANEK SINGH SON OF SHIVALAK SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NATHURA SULTANPUR, P.O. MATHURA, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been convicted u/s.323 and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months under each count and appellant no.1 has been convicted u/ss.147 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and five years respectively and appellant no.2 has been convicted u/ss.326 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and two years respectively by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.98 of 1988 by a judgment dated 22.2.1994. - 2 - 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.9.1986 when the informant learnt that the accused persons were attempting to take possession of the disputed lands, he went to the place of occurrence and when he restrained them from taking any further action he was assaulted by appellant Shankar Singh on his head with a lathi and by appellant Madhusudhan Singhwith a farsa and the rest of the accused persons assaulted him with lathi. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is a co-villager of the informant and has supported the case of the prosecution as an eye witness. P.W.2 is the injured and first informant of the case, whereas the P.W.3 is his son, also an eye witness. P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined the injured and P.W.5 and P.W.6 are formal in nature. P.w.7 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, I find that they have fully supported the occurrence in the manner described by the informant in the First Information Report that after an altercation the appellants Shambhu Singh and Madhusudhan Singh assaulted the injured with a lathi and farsa respectively, whereas the rest of the accused persons assaulted him with lathi. The doctor (P.W.4) also found two injuries on the head, one caused by hard and blunt substance whereas the other was caused by sharp cutting weapon and also testified to the presence of other injuries on the person of the informant caused - 3 - by hard and blunt substance. Thus the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. In view of such, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. However the period undergone would be sufficient in the interest of justice for the convictions noted above. In addition the appellant nos.1 and 2, if alive, shall pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each to the informant/his family members within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment and in absence of which six months R.I. 6. With these modifications, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated, 3rd May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )