Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.42 OF 1995 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 7th April, 1995, and 10th April, 1995, passed by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1990. *** 1. ARBIND RAY son of Late Jal Govind Ray, 2. Indrashan Devi wife of Jal Govind Rai Both resident of village-Dahia, Police Station- Bhagawanpur, District-Begusarai …Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent *** For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Advocate & Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under section 326 Indian Penal Code and appellant no.2 has been convicted under section 326/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and two years respectively by judgment and order dated 07.04.1995 and 10.04.1995 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Case No.13 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.01.1988 when the informant had returned to matrimonial home with her husband, the appellants who were not happy with her marriage, variously assaulted her and her husband and also her mother who came to intervene. On account of assault by the appellants with a dagger the deceased died later. The appellants were charged under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted of the charge and convicted as mentioned above. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom P.W.5 is the formal witness, P.W. 1, 2 and 4 are the material witnesses, whereas, P.W.3 is the doctor, who examined the injuries of the informant (P.W.4) - 2 - and the deceased. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 and 4, I find that it was their case that the appellant no.1 and unknown persons had assaulted the deceased with a dagger and the deceased had sustained two injuries but it was not proved as to which of the injury had caused the death of the deceased. 4. On going through the evidence of three material witnesses and the doctor, who initially examined the deceased, there is no manner of doubt that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Under the circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal. However, the sentence of the appellants is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR / JA/-