Criminal Appeal No.205 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in S. Tr. No.50 of 1986] 1. RAM ASHRAY SINGH SON OF LATE LAXMI SINGH 2. AWADHESH SINGH SON OF LATE LAXMI SINGH 3. SUNAINA @ SURENDRA RAM SON OF CHANDRA DEO KAHAR 4. KAILASH PASWAN @ KAILASH RAM SON OF LATE KODU RAM 5. DUKHI SINGH SON OF LATE CHABITRA SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAMHUTA, P.S. + DISTRICT ROHTAS ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Advocate Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar No.3, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, 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.304 Part (I)/34 I.P.C. whereas appellant nos.1 to 4 have been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and appellant no.5 has been sentenced to R.I. for five years by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in S. Tr. No.50 of 1986 by a judgment dated 20.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution that on 17.4.1985 while the informant was cooking in her house the accused persons came there variously armed and thereafter the appellant no.1 is said to have given a lathi blow on informant’s husband on the head, on account of which he fell down and later died. - 2 - 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3 is the informant and the wife of the deceased, whereas the P.W.4 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed as eye witnesses. 4. On going through the evidence of these three witnesses, I find that their consistent case is only that the appellant no.1 had assaulted the deceased whereas there is no allegation against the rest of the appellants. Only two injuries have been found on the person of the deceased by the doctor (P.W.4) and, therefore, in my view, the conviction of the appellant nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 be set aside and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 5. As for the conviction of the appellant no.1, in my opinion in the facts of the case at best it would be a case u/s.325 I.P.C. and, therefore, his conviction is converted to one u/s.325 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to the period already undergone during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Patna High Court Dated, 19th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )