Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 200 OF 1994 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 7.7.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9/88/34/90 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur ****** 1. RAM NATH SINGH S/O SRI GANESH SINGH 2. DEOSHANKAR SINGH S/O SRI MUNSHI SINGH 3. BISHWANATH SINGH S/O SRI SWAROOP SINGH 4. SURENDRA SINGH S/O SRI RAM PRASAD SINGH 5. PAWINDRA SINGH S/O SRI MUNSHI SINGH 6. NAGESHWAR SINGH S/O SRI RAM LOCHAN SINGH 7. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SRI RAM PRASAD SINGH 8. SHATRUGHAN SINGH S/O SRI PHAKIRA SINGH 9. SHIVA CHANDRA SINGH S/O SRI RAM PRASAD SINGH 10. RAM SINGAR SINGH S/O SRI GANESHI SINGH 11. RAM PRASAD SINGH S/O SRI PHAKIRA SINGH 12. RAM BABU SINGH S/O SRI GANESHI SINGH 13. SRI SHIVA JEE SINGH S/O SRI RAM PRASAD SINGH 14. SRI MUNSHI SINGH S/O RAM LOCHAN SINGH 15. BALESHWAR SINGH S/O SRI BHUJUNGA SINGH 16. BHUJUNGA SINGH S/O SRI BHANA SINGH ALL R/O MAHAMMADPUR DARIYA, P.S.- GORAUL, DISTRICT- VAISHALI ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan Sr. Adv. 2. Nityanand Adv. For the State : J.K. Singh APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no. 4 has been convicted under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years whereas appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and the appellant nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 have been convicted under Section 147 and 323 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment but appellant no. 6 has been released on probation whereas the appellant nos. 1,4,14 and 16 have been convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali, at Hajipur by a judgment dated 7.7.1994 in Sessions Trial Case No. 9/88/34/90. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons came upon the fields of the informant Sheo Balak Singh P.W.7 and on a trifling matter entered into an altercation with him and assaulted him and subsequently it is stated that the appellant no.6 set fire in the dwelling house of the informant. 3. The prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 is a co-villager of informant whereas P.W. 2,4,5 and 7 are material witnesses and relatives among themselves and P.W.3 is an eyewitness from adjoining villager, P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. It has been submitted that on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of Investigating Officer is important which would dislodge the conviction of the appellants under Section 436 I.P.C. since he had found that the hut which had been burnt was in fact a aplani which was being used for keeping odd items whereas the house of the informant was 10 yards away. 5. The submission is that under the circumstances, it would not a case of 436 I.P.C. On going through the objective evidence I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant no.4 is hereby converted to one under Section 435 I.P.C. 6. However, on going through the evidence of the material witnesses who were injured i.e. P.W. 4,5,7, I find that they have fully supported the case of the accused having assaulted the injured persons and are completely reliable even though there were minor indiscrepancies in their evidence. 7. In view of such, the appeal is dismissed but the sentence is modified to a period already undergone by the appellants. 8. The appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 1st April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.