IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.1161 of 2010 1. Jiut Yadav, S/o. Sri Ram Munni Yadav, 2. Rameshwar Yadav, S/o. Ramprit Yadav, 3. Awadh Bihari Yadav, S/o. Dukhi Yadav, 4. Mahendra Yadav, S/o. Ram Bachan Yadav, 5. Ramlesh Yadav, S/o. Amika Yadav, 6. Amirchand Yadav, S/o. Ghoril Yadav, All r/o. village- Rampur Mathiya, P.S. Simari, District-Buxar. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Surajdeo Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the State: Mr. S.N. Prasad, Addl.P.P. ----------- 03. 10.02.2011 At the consent of both sides, this appeal was heard at the stage of admission. This appeal is against the judgment dated 27.08.2010 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Buxar passed in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2004, whereby the six appellants have been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. As to the quantum of sentence the learned trial-court did not pass any substantive sentence of imprisonment and let off the appellants after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act. The F.I.R. was initially lodged under Sections 307, 324, 323/34 of I.P.C. with the allegation that when the informant had gone to Court 2 the appellants, who were also present there, pressurized him for withdrawing a case pending in the Court and on his refusal appellant Mahendra Yadav and Awadh Bihari Yadav assaulted him with dagger causing bleeding injury and the other appellants assaulted him by means of lathi causing other injuries. The case was investigated and on investigation police submitted charge sheet under Section 307 and other Sections of the I.P.C. against the appellants Mahendra Yadav and Awadh Bihari Yadav only and other appellants were not sent up for trial reporting them to be innocent. But the learned C.J.M. on perusal of case-diary took cognizance of the offence against all the appellants who were put on trial by the trial-court and on conclusion of the trial the said sentence of conviction and sentence has been passed. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in this case the P.W.5 Sada Sheo Parvat, the informant has adduced evidence putting general and omnibus allegation on the appellants that they had 3 assaulted him at the relevant time and place. It was also admitted by him in his evidence that appellant Mahendra Yadav had also lodged counter case under Buxar (T) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2004 regarding the occurrence. It was submitted that besides the informant no other reliable witness was examined to support the case of the prosecution as put forth by the P.W.4, the informant. Learned counsel pointed out to the evidence of P.W.7 Mr. Subhash Singh who was an advocate working in that local court and he deposed in his evidence that it was the informant Sada Sheo Parvat along with some other persons armed with brick that they were assaulting the appellants Mahendra Yadav and Abadh Bihari Yadav and that he had intervened and saved them from further assault. Thus, the evidence of the P.W.7 gives entirely a different story in the matter and puts the prosecution story in grave realm of doubt. The judgment of the learned trial-court does not mention any other reliable evidence of other witnesses on the point of occurrence. 4 In the facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. Accordingly, I hold that the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial-court against the appellants is not fit to be sustained under law, hence, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)