Criminal Appeal No.44 OF 1994 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.1.1994 and 25.1.1994 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.156 of 1988] 1. MAHESH SINGH @ MAHESH PRASAD SINGH SON OF DEO NARAIN SINGH 2. CHANDESHWAR SINGH SON OF TRIJUGI SINGH 3. MUNESHWAR SINGH @ BHUNESHWAR SINGH SON OF TRIJUGI SINGH 4. BISHWANATH SINGH SON OF LATE BATESHWAR SINGH 5. JULUM SINGH SON OF NUNU SINGH 6. MANOJ SINGH SON OF BISWANATH SINGH 7. LALA SINGH SON OF LATE JAGGAR NATH SINGH 8. UMESH SINGH SON OF LATE JAGGAR NATH SINGH 9. SARWAN SINGH @ SIRWAN SINGH SON OF LATE HEMAN SINGH 10. AJAY SINGH SON OF CHANDESHWAR SINGH 11. RAM NARESH SINGH SON OF KESHAW SINGH 12. RAM BABU SINGH SON OF JRIJUGI SINGH 13. CHANDRA MAULI SINGH SON OF LATE JAGARNATH SINGH 14. MAHENDRA SAHNI SON OF SHRI CHARAN SAHNI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARSAI, P.S. SARAI, DISTRICT VAISHALI (ACCUSED) ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Renu Kumari, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.323/149 I.P.C. and further the appellants no.3, 4, 12, 13 and 14 have been convicted u/s.148 I.P.C. and the rest u/s.147 I.P.C. but all of them have been given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and directed to be released on a bond of Rs.2000/- with one surety each for - 2 - maintaining peace for a period of one year by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.156 of 1988 by a judgment dated 22.1.1994 and 25.1.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.10.1987 the accused persons came near the house of the informant and variously assaulted three persons on a minor matter of taking water from well. 3. The prosecution in all has examined nine witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are on the factum of occurrence, whereas the P.W.5 is tendered. P.W.2 is the grand father of the informant, who is hearsay and P.W.7 is the informant himself. P.W.8 is the doctor, who examined the two injured. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W.6, I find that even though he had deposed as an eye witness but he had not given such a statement before the Investigating Officer. It also appears that there was a counter version of the occurrence, for which Exhibit A has been proved by the defence. None of the interested and material prosecution witnesses have explained the existence of the counter version which creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court that the prosecution has not brought the true version before the court. 5. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 22.1.1994 and 25.1.1994 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.156 of 1988 is set - 3 - aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 5th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )