Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.304 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Munger in Sessions Trial No.127 of 1991] 1. Doman Yadav son of late Raghunandan Yadav 2. Biran Yadav son of Ram Roop Yadav 3. Bhuto Yadav son of Aazo Yadav 4. Subodh Yadav son of Ram Roop Yadav 5. Kaliman Yadav son of Aazo Yadav 6. Sopari Yadav son of Raghunandan Yadav 7. Putul Yadav son of Sukhdeo Yadav 8. Madho Yadav son of late Basu Yadav 9. Munchun Yadav son of Sri Nandan Yadav 10. Sukhdeo Yadav son of Ram Krishna Yadav 11. Ravish Yadav son of Sukhdeo Yadav, All residents of village Chowkhandi, P.S. Basudeopur, District Munger …………………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate Mrs. Kalpana, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: All the appellants have been convicted u/ss.323 and 452 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year under each count. Further appellant nos.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been convicted u/s.147 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months and appellant nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been convicted u/s.148 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months. Further the appellant no.6 has been convicted u/s.325 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and appellant nos.1, 3 and 4 have been convicted u/s.27 Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year by a judgment dated 27.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Munger in Sessions 2 Trial No.127 of 1991. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.8.1989 while the informant was standing in front of his house and his other family members were gathered around, the accused persons along with 20-25 others came there and while appellants Manoj Yadav and Poshan Yadav fired from the gun at the informant, Bhuto Yadav and Supari Yadav assaulted the informant with lathi, appellant Katiman Yadav is said to have assaulted his sister-in- law with a chhura, whereas appellants Mohan Yadav and Madho Yadav assaulted the wife and sister-in-law of the informant with lathi. Appellants Supari Yadav and Ragho Yadav assaulted the father of the informant with lathi, on account of which his hand was fractured. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of its case. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the informant, P.W.3 is his wife, P.W.6 is his sister-in-law and P.W.5 is the informant himself. P.W.7 and P.W.10 have been tendered, whereas P.W.8 is the doctor, who had examined the injured and P.W.9 has been declared hostile. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the other eye witnesses. 4. The defence pleaded complete denial of the alleged occurrence and that they were falsely implicated on account of land dispute. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case and, therefore, the prosecution case is bereft of any objective evidence with regard to the place of occurrence and such other facts. 3 5. However, from the evidence of the material eye witnesses, apart from minor discrepancies no major flaws would be detected and, therefore, it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellants on this score. However, in view of the nature of offence and the fact that the occurrence had taken place 22 years ago, in the interest of justice the period undergone by the appellants during trial shall be sufficient for their conviction under the various counts. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. Patna High Court Dated, 29th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )