Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 29 OF 1994 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.01.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1982/ 68 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya. ****** DOMAN BHAGAT S/O KIA BHAGAT @ RAM DAHIN BHAGAT, R/O MOHALLA- DELHA KHARPURA, P.S.- DELHA (KOTWALI) DISTRICT- GAYA ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mrs. Nilima Sinha Adv. : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years by the judgment dated 22.01.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1982/ 68 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant was irrigating his fields on 5.5.1982 the appellant came there and gave fasuli blow on his neck and head on account of which he was injured. The motive for occurrence was that appellant has got 15 to 20 she goats which used to damage the crop of the first informant to which he protested and then appellant being enraged assaulted the informant. The appellant was charged under Section 307 I.P.C. but acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 has been declared hostile whereas P.W.2 is tendered, P.W.4 is the doctor who examined P.W.3 the informant and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. In effect the prosecution case rested on the sole oral evidence of P.W.3. As per the doctor P.W.4 both the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. The officer who visited the place of occurrence did not find any blood at the place of occurrence and therefore, there is no objective evidence with regard to the place of occurrence. 4. Undoubtedly, the occurrence took place in the middle of the night at 10 p.m. and the assault was from the back. 5. Under the circumstances, it would be difficult to anyone to conclusively say as to who was the assailant especially since the informant has asserted that he had seen the appellant assaulting him and not that he was seen fleeing away, which would lead to the conclusion that the appellant had assaulted the informant. 6. In view of such, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant, in the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1982/ 68 of 1992 by the judgment dated 22.01.1994 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of his charges. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 19th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.