Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 236 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by Sri Chakra Dhar Rai, learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 347 of 1996. ****** Jitendra Thakur, Son of Sri Chandeshwar Thakur, resident of village – Muraitha, P.S. Jalley, District – Darbhanga. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and two years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the police party when going to collect information towards Khiroi river, then in way they got a confidential information that the appellant who is wanted in several cases, is 2 concealing himself in wheat field and then the police party raided and surrounded but the accused fled away firing on the police party causing injury to a home guard Deo Narayan Yadav. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor found lacerated wound 1/3/4” x 1” muscle deep on the right side of the upper part of forehead with tailing of wound at its posterior aspect. Margin burnt and smell of gun powder was coming from the wound. Injury was caused within six hours of examination. The injury was stated to be simple in nature but caused by firearm and further taking into consideration the evidence though P.W. 1 Ram Praboth Thakur @ Praboth Thakur and independent witnesses turned hostile, but P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 supported the prosecution case about the firing causing injury to P.W. 3, Deo Narayan Yadav, a home guard and also taking into consideration the discrepancies about the distance of firing held that the discrepancies pointed out minor in nature and it is very difficult to assess the distance at the time of firing when chasing the victim and hence convicted and sentenced. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that there are several discrepancies and contradictions such as time of occurrence as some have stated the time of occurrence is 8:00 A.M., some have stated 9:00 A.M. and some have stated 10:00 A.M. Some have stated that they were going to meet call of nature, some have stated to have 3 received the information about the victim and some have stated that they proceeded on the command of A.S.I. It has further been contended that one of the members of the party Ganesh Jha has not been examined. 5. However, taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the witnesses are P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 have supported the prosecution case and their evidence are reliable, consistence and worthy of confidence to be relied upon. However, the contradictions pointed out about time of occurrence and their manners of presence are minor in nature. The witnesses are rustic. It cannot be expected that the witnesses disclose the time seeing the watch at the time of occurrence to say exact time. The time stated in the evidence by witnesses was approximate time and it cannot be seen with mathematical precision. The presence of witness as per their evidence by different modes does not mean that they were not there. Their evidence that they received information or proceed on command referring the same thing in different language and the prosecution story cannot be rejected on these contradictions. The evidence of witness cannot be thrown because of the discrepancies pointed out when the story is probable coming in its natural flow it cannot be rejected. 6. However, it has been submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1996. The appellant has remained in jail for about one year during trial and also remained in jail from the date of conviction from 30.04.1998 till 4 his release by order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 08.03.1999 and further suffered due to the prosecution since 1996 and hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the ends of justice shall be met by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone and hence the appeal is dismissed with this modification in sentence. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 24th August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.