IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 112 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1997 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali, at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1989.) ============================================= 1. RAM BABOO RAI, SON OF SHRI JHUM LAL RAI 2. HARBANSH RAI, SON OF SHRI JHUM LAL RAI 3. JAI BABOO RAI SON OF SHRI JHUM LAL RAI 4. NAULAKH RAI SON OF SHRI JHUM LAL RAI 5. SHYAM BABOO RAI SON OF SHRI MOHAN RAI 6. JHUM LAL RAI SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN RAI 7. DAHOUR RAI SON OF SHRI JAMUN RAI APPELLANTS NOS. 1 TO 4 AND 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LODIPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT HARBANSHPUR DIARA, KHUSHALI MOUZA, P.S. TOWN THANA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. APPELLANT NO. 5 SHYAM BABOO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LODIPUR, P.S. TOWN THANA HAJIPUR, DISTT. VAISHALI. APPELLANT NO. 7 IS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM BHADRA, P.S. TOWN THANA DISTT. VAISHALI .... .... APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT ============================================= Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Upendra Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs. Chandrakala jaiswal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mahendra Nand Jha, A.P.P. ============================================ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.207 of 1989by a Judgment dated 19.4.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Inormant Dhaneshwar Rai is that about eight days before the present occurrence he had purchased a certain piece of land and on 3.9.1988 when he and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.112 of 1997 dt.06-07-2011 2 his brother Nanda Rai and nephew Umesh Rai harvesting the maize crops, the accused persons variously armed came there and accosted why he was harvesting the maize crop and when he told them that he is original purchaser of the said land, he along with his brother and nephew were variously assaulted. The Appellant was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses whereas the defence examined three witnesses on their behalf. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW-1 is formal whereas PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are eye witnesses. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are three injured witnesses out of whom PW-7 is the Informant. PW-8 is also formal witness and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer whereas PW-10 is the Doctor who examined the injured and PW-11 is also formal witness. 4. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses were examined mainly to show that the land in question belongs to the Appellants and it was the prosecution which was aggressor and the assault had taken place for asserting the right of the private defence of property. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that the accused persons variously armed assaulted the three injured which further finds corroboration from the evidence of the Doctor. This occurrence is said to have taken place on account of exercise of right over the disputed property and there is no specific overt act alleged against any of the Appellant. The three injured witnesses, allege that they had been assaulted with Farsa and such other sharp cutting weapons, but the Doctor found injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. Further, there is contradiction about the weapons which were being carried by the accused persons and this assumes importance in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.112 of 1997 dt.06-07-2011 3 the background of land dispute between the parties. 6. However, these cannot be reasons for setting aside the prosecution case, when there are categorical statements of the three injured and the other corroborative witnesses that the accused persons had indulged in assaulting the three injured. 7. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. However, the period undergone by them during trial shall be sufficient in the interest of justice. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, 6th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI