Criminal Appeal No.45 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.344 of 1989] 1. RAM PUKAR JHA, SON OF LATE JAMUNA JHA 2. GANGA PD. JHA, SON OF RAMJI JHA 3. RAMJI JHA, SON OF LATE HARUNI JHA 4. MADHU KANT JHA, SON OF RAM AUTAR JHA 5. JAI KANT JHA, SON OF LATE RAMAUTAR JHA, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIPARASAD, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months and in addition appellant no.4 has been convicted u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.344 of 1989 by a judgment dated 27.3.1995. The prosecution case is that there was a land dispute between the parties and when the informant had gone to his field on 25.8.1988, the accused persons protested and asked him to go away and when he refused, he was assaulted as also his umbrella and wrist watch etc were taken away by the accused persons. Initially the appellants were charged u/ss.307/149 and 379 I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges and convicted as - 2 - mentioned above. During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses on its behalf. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the injured witness. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence, whereas P.W.3 has been declared hostile. P.W.4 is the informant, who is also an injured witness and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined the two injured. On behalf of the defence D.W.1 was examined, who stated about the falsity of the prosecution case and the fact that there was land dispute between the parties. D.W.2 is also on the same count. A number of documents were also produced by the defence to show that there was active land dispute between the parties. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, it is evident that the assault had taken place when these two witnesses had refused to move themselves from the lands of the accused persons. In the fact of the case it appears that the assault was made on account of right of private defence of property. These two witnesses have also been substantially disbelieved by the Trial Court since the story of theft, which was inter-twined with the prosecution case, has not been accepted. Surprisingly the doctor, who examined the two injured, had signed on the injury reports one month prior to the present occurrence. In view of the earlier discussions, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against - 3 - the appellants on 27.3.1995 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.344 of 1989 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 26th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )