Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 352 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Jagannath Sah, S/o Late Shital Sah. 2. Shambhu Nath Sah. 3. Satya Narain Sah. Both sons of Jagannath Sah.. All R/o Village-Karhari, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali. ……………..(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR------(Respondent) ************ For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar-I, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP. ************ 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 307/109 IPC whereas the appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and all the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI. They all in addition have been convicted under Section 341 IPC but no separate sentence has been passed with regard to the said conviction whereas the appellant No. 3 has been convicted for 10 years RI under Section 307 IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 131/88 by judgment dated 06.10.1994. The case of the prosecution is that on account of a land dispute the accused persons came upon the lands assaulted them on account of which two fingers of the informant, P.W. 9 was chopped off when he tried to ward off “Farsa” blow on his head. The prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are eye witnesses and had supported the factum of the informant P.W. 9. P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 have been tendered, P.W. 7 is the Doctor who examined the injured and P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 are the Investigating Officers. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the manner of occurrence is belied by the counter-case, instituted for the same occurrence which is supported by P.W. 7, Doctor who had found serious injuries on the person of the appellant No. 1. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that there was no explanation with regard to the injury sustained by the appellant No. 1 in absence of which the prosecution case becomes doubtful. The further submission is that the evidence of the eye witnesses is not credible and cogent and there are material contradictions in regard to the manner of occurrence. Having considered the arguments on behalf of the appellants as also gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and the informant, I find that the prosecution case is fit to be discarded for the sole reason that there is no explanation with regard to the serious injuries sustained by the appellant No. 1. Evidently the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the occurrence before the Court. In the result I have no hesitation in acquitting the appellants of all the charges. The appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.10.1994 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 131 of 1988 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. The appeal stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 4th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-