Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 69 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 89/ 90 of 92 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. ****** 1. BIRCHAND RAI S/O RAM BARAN RAI 2. KAILASH RAI S/O PARMESHWAR RAI 3. RAM BARAN RAI S/O RAM JATAN RAI 4. RAM BALAK RAI S/O RAM JATAN RAI 5. RAM SOGARATH RAI S/O RAM JATAN RAI ALL R/O VILLAGE TAJPUR, P.S.- LALGANJ, DISTRICT- VAISHALI ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Nachiketa Jha Adv. For the State : Parmeshwar Mehta APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years whereas the appellant nos. 2 and 4 have also been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. but no separate sentenced has been passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 89/ 90 of 92 by the judgment dated 29.5.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant P.W.3 is that on 27.5.1988 a dispute arose between the parties on account of digging a ditch by the side of the house in course of which the appellants have assaulted. 3. The prosecution in all examined 6 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.W. 5 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 4 is the doctor who examined the injured Ram Baran Rai and Ram Sanjiv Rai P.W. 3 and 2 respectively. 4. The defence also examined 2 witnesses on its behalf and to bring on record the First Information Report counter case vide exhibit- A and the deposition of the doctors to demonstrate that in fact the appellants had also been injured in the same transaction. 5. From the evidence of P.W. 5, it appears that he did not find any sign of blood at the place of occurrence. The doctor who examined the two injured has falsified the case of the prosecution as also the injuries sustained by the informant P.W.3 has not been brought on record. 6. It appears from the evidence of the material witnesses that they categorically denied the counter version and the fact that the accused persons had also been injured in the same transaction. This leads the court to an impression that in fact the prosecution has not brought the true story before the court and the prosecution case is therefore fit to be discarded. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 89/ 90 of 92 by the judgment dated 29.5.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 22nd April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.