Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 120 OF 1995 Against the judgment and order dated 16.06.1995 passed by Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 108 of 1987. ************ 1. Rajendra Pd. Chaudhary, S/o Ganaur Chaudhary. 2. Madan Pd. Chaudhary, S/o Rajendra Pd. Chaudhary. 3. Kamta Pd. Chaudhary, S/o Rajendra Pd. Chaudhary. 4. Kishori Devi, W/o Rajendra Pd. Chaudhary. All are resident of Village-Jatkawali, P.S.-Vaishali, Dist.-Vaishali. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 324 and 341 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and one month respectively whereas appellant No. 4 has been ordered to be released on execution of bond of Rs. 5,000/- under the provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C. by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 108/87 by a judgment dated 16.06.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to one Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary is that while he along with his family members was cutting wheat crops the accused persons came there variously armed and 2 assaulted with sword, farsa and bhala on account of which they were injured. The appellants were initially charged under Sections 307 and 379 IPC but were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the daughter-in- law of the informant whereas P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the co-villagers of the informant. P.W. 4 is a person of neigbouring village whereas P.W. 5 is the wife of the informant and P.W. 6 is the informant himself. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 is a formal witness who has proved the injury report. 4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that undoubtedly there is oral evidence that the accused persons have variously assaulted the injured Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudary, the informant, Rajpati Devi and Neelam Kumari but the Doctor was not examined in this case and, therefore, the injuries remained unproved. Even though the manner and place of occurrence have been established the injuries have remained uncorroborated. It is thus difficult to convict the appellants on the basis of only ocular evidence. 5. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 16.06.1995 passed by the 3rd 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 108/87 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 1st July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-