Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 107 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 82/75 of 85 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani. ****** 1. PRAMOD NARAYAN JHA S/O LATE SHILA NATH JHA R/O- GHOGHARDIHA, P.S.- GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI 2. HIRA NAND JHA S/O PRAMOD NR. JHA R/O VILLAGE- GHOGHARDIHA, P.S.- GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh Adv. For the State : Hirday Prasad Singh Addl. APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section 307 &148 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years whereas appellant no.2 has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and in addition both of them have already been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and no separate sentence has been passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by the judgment dated 31.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 82/75 of 85. 2. The case of the prosecution is that while the informant and others were going to the site of construction of new college on 31.7.81 the accused persons variously armed accosted them and assaulted the informant and P.W.6. 3. The prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses out of whom P.W. 5,6 and 8 are the three injured witnesses, P.W.9 is the doctor who examined them, P.W.10, 11, 12 and 13 are formal witnesses whereas P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are eye-witnesses, P.W.4 is tendered. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 4. Admittedly all the three injured persons belong to the same family and rest of the witnesses were also interested in nature. Further from the evidence of the doctor, I find that the prosecution case has been materially contradicted since even though P.W.5 had alleged that he was assaulted with Bhala no such injury was found on him. P.W.9 stated that he was assaulted with Farsa but only one incised wound have been found on him, P.W.8 similarly had received only two injuries one of each was incise in nature. Under the circumstances it is difficult to accept the prosecution case as having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by the judgment dated 31.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 82/75 of 85 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 21st April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.