Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.240 OF 1994 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.1994 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1989) RAM LAKHAN SAH, SON OF LATE NARAYAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATA, TOLA SAH, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT. SIWAN. ------- APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------- RESPONDENT For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh, A.P.P. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 267 of 1994 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.1994 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1989) HARI PUJAN SAH @ RAM PUJAN SAH, SON OF LAKHAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATA, TOLA SAH, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT. SIWAN. ------ APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------RESPONDENT For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: It has been submitted that during pendency of the Appeal, the Appellant of Criminal Appeal 240 of 1994 (Ram Lakhan Sah) had died and, therefore, the Appeal abate in his regard. The Appeal is dismissed as having abated. The surviving Appellant of Criminal Appeal 267 of 1994 (Hari Pujan Sah @ Ram Pujan Sah) has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one 2 year by a Judgment dated 13.6.1994 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1989. The prosecution case is that on 13.3.1988, a minor altercation arose between the parties and when the Informant and others interjected, accused Ram Lakhan Sah is said to have given a knife blow on the stomach of Sheo Shankar whereas the present Appellant assaulted the injured with Lathi. During trial, the prosecution produces six witnesses out of whom PW-1 is the daughter of PW-2 and PWs-2, 3, 4 and 5 are on the point of occurrence whereas PW-6 is the Doctor who examined the injuries of PWs 4 and 5. The prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer in the present case. On going through the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4 and 5, I find that there are numerous discrepancies in the manner of occurrence with regard to the present Appellant and, therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon them for maintaining the conviction of the Appellant. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1994 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1989 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 7th April, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)