IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.964 of 2008 1. HIRA LAL YADAV Son of Ram Swaroop Yadav 2. Bhondu Yadav Son of Late Dwarika Yadav 3. Awadhesh Yadav Son of Bhondu Yadav 4. Bachchu Yadav Son of Late Sadhu Yadav 5. Ram Swaroop Yadav son of Late Deolal Yadav 6. Ram Pravesh Yadav son of lakhan Yadav 7. Rameshwar Yadav son of Late Deolal Yadav 8. Jitendra Yadav son of Nunu Yadav All are resident of Village- Chhatiyana Tola Gopalpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad ------------------------Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR -------------------------- Opposite Party ----------- 2. 18.4.2009 Heard. Charges were framed under Sections 323/149 and 427/149 of the I.P.C. against all the petitioners. Further charge under Section 436/27 of the Arms Act has been framed against petitioner no. 1. The Trial Court acquitted petitioner no. 1 of the charge under Section 436 of the I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court found the charge under Section 323/149 of the I.P.C. only sustainable against the petitioners. It acquitted petitioner nos. 2 to 8 of the charge under Section 427/149 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court in view of nature of allegations instead of awarding any substantive punishment released the convicts on executing probation bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety for a period of one year for maintaining peace and good behaviour. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court erred in convicting the petitioners even under Sections 323/149 of the I.P.C. He submits that petitioner no. 5 Ram Swaroop Yadav was a person of a very old age, in fact, he was about 70 years on the date of occurrence which took place on 24.2.2008. It appears - 2 - from the prosecution case that informant Siyaram Yadav alleged that all the accused persons uprooted the peg and damaged the nad of the informant. Not only this they came armed with lathi and assaulted the informant and his brother Dhanu Yadav. He also alleged that accused Hira Lal Yadav put the thatched room on fire. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of his case including P.W. 8, Sumeshwar Prasad Singh who is a medical officer and P.W. 10 is the I.O of the case. The informant examined himself as P.W. 6. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, participation of Ram Swaroop Yadav does not seem to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt as such is acquitted of the charge under Section 323/149 of the I.P.C. Consequently he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond also. So far as other petitioners are concerned, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are substantively consistent as such I do not find any infirmity in the evidence so far as other petitioners are concerned. Thus I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. It appears that the petitioners have already executed the bond pursuant to the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. As the occurrence arose on account of bona fide land dispute, this Court observes that the conviction against the remaining accused persons under Section 323/149 of the I.P.C. will not incur any disqualification. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. P. Kumar (S. P. Singh, J.)