Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 119 OF 1994 Against the judgment and order dated 05.03.1994 passed by Sri Jaleshwar Ram, Additional Sessions –XII, Patna in S.Tr. No. 980/89. ************ 1. Ram Chandra Ram, S/o Late Kallu Ram. 2. Shambhu Ram. 3. Kailash Ram. 4. Kanhaiya Ram. All son of Ramchandra Ram, resident of Village- Ramji Chouk, P.S.-Digha, P.O.-Batagunj, District- Patna. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, Adv. : Mr. Manjeshwar Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and rest of the appellants under Section 323 IPC and all of them have been directed to be released on probation of good conduct and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 980/89 by a judgment dated 05.03.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Satrughan Mistry is that on 19.07.1987 while he was at the shop of his son Mahesh Mistry the accused persons came there variously armed and then the appellant Ram Chandra Ram gave a bhala blow on 2 the chest of Mahesh Mistry on account of which he fell down and thereafter Kailash hurled a bhala on the injured Mahesh Mistry which missed. When the informant protested all the accused persons assaulted them with various arms. 3. During trial the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are witnesses on the point of occurrence out of whom P.W. 3 is the informant. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the injured. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. 4. On behalf of the defence it was alleged that there was a counter-version of the occurrence and to prove this fact Exhibit-A was brought on record. Further it was also contended that the occurrence had taken place in different manner and the prosecution had not been truthful in its narration of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer not having been examined by the prosecution was also fatal since he alone could have brought the objective evidence with regard to the manner and place of occurrence which was seriously disputed. 5. On going through the evidence on record, I find that all the material witnesses have denied the factum of the counter-version which alone is enough to set aside the prosecution case since it has suppressed the true version of the occurrence. 3 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 05.03.1994 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 980/89 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 30th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-