Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 125 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1997 passed by Sri Sri Prakash Rai, Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna in S.Tr. No. 1049/92. ************ 1. Raghunath Paswan, S/o Ram Ishwar Paswan. 2. Ganga Paswan, S/o Sadhunandan Paswan. 3. Sudama Paswan, S/o Raj Ballam Paswan. 4. Anil Paswan, S/o Nageshwar Paswan. 5. Bindeshwar Paswan, S/o Raghunath Paswan. 6. Manu Paswan, S/o-Late Kalika Paswan. All resident of Village-Chapaur, P.S.-Masaurhi, District-Patna. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants No. 1 to 5 have been convicted under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and sentenced to RI for six months under each count whereas the appellant No. 6 has been convicted under Sections 324 and 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year under each count by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 1049/1992 by a judgment dated 26.02.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, Ram Jiwan Prasad is that while he was sitting at his darwaza along with Bhagirath Mahto and Ram Sagar Mahto suddenly 30-32 persons came to his house and then Raghunath Paswan ordered the others to catch hold of the informant at which Ganga Paswan caught him and enquired about his rifle. He replied that the rifle was inside the house at which Manu Paswan gave a chhura blow which caused 2 injury on his right eye. Accused Sudama Paswan ordered that he be kidnapped for ransom at which the accused persons started to drag the informant to some distance. In the meanwhile some body fired from the informant’s house hearing which the accused persons ran away. The defence of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity and that in fact they had taken the crops of the informant in auction and in order to prevent the taking away the harvested crops prosecution party had falsely implicated the accused persons. 3. On behalf of the prosecution eight witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have been declared hostile whereas P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are the sons of the informant and P.W. 6 is the informant himself. P.W. 7 is the Doctor who examined the injury on the person of the informant and P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 3 is another eye witness. 4. On behalf of the defence one witness namely Bharat Paswan was examined who testified on the fact that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was pending between informant and one Sona Devi and the crops of the disputed land had been auction sold of which the appellants were purchasers and to prevent the harvesting they have been falsely implicated. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W. 6, the informant, I find that he stated that in this transaction he had been assaulted variously by the accused persons and manhandled by them. P.W. 7, the Doctor found corroborative 3 injuries on the person of the informant. Therefore, the fact that the informant had been assaulted can not be belied. Also the evidence of the four eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 who categorically stated that on the date of occurrence 30-32 accused persons forming unlawful assembly came to the house of the informant on the date of occurrence and variously assaulted him and attempted to take him away. 6. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. However, considering that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1990 i.e. 21 years ago the period already undergone by the appellants shall be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 7. With the aforesaid modifications in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 12th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-