Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 52 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Ram Das Singh. 2. Bhuwaneshwar Singh @ Muneshwar Singh. Both sons of Mahendra Singh. 3. Amar Singh. 4. Bachcha Singh. Both sons of Kailash Singh. All the four residents of Arwa, Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Saran (Chapra). ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Adv. : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Adv. : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, 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. 1. The appellants No. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years and four months respectively whereas the appellants No. 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 323/147 IPC and released on probation of Offenders Act on a bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties for a period of two years by a judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.Tr. No. 59 of 1978. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.1973 while the grainary was seized by the Court the appellant Bhuneshwar Singh came to lift some 2 grains from it on account of which an altercation arose and then appellant No. 1 is said to have given bhala blow on the neck of the informant’s son Harendra Singh and appellant No. 2 is said to have given “Farsa” blow on his head. The appellants are also said to have assaulted the informant with “Bhala”. 3. On behalf of the prosecution four witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 3 is the informant herself. P.W. 2 is her son and the injured whereas P.W. 1 is another injured P.W. 4 is also an eye witness to the occurrence but he was the son-in-law of the informant. The Doctor was examined as Court witness. 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a counter-version of the occurrence but the same was specially denied by the prosecution witnesses. 5. From the evidence of the Doctor, I find that he had found simple injuries on the person of three injured P.W. 1/P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the fact there was a counter-version of the occurrence can not be denied since the trial was proceeding in the same Court and, therefore, the denial of the existence of a counter-version by the prosecution party gives rise to suspicion that the prosecution has not brought the correct version before the Court. 3 7. Accepting the said submissions, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.Tr. No. 59 of 1978 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 5th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-