Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1993/ 412 of 1993. **** 1. Kamaluddin alias Md. Kamaluddin son of Late Sheikh Darvesh 2. Md. Sohrab son of Md. Manzoor Hassan, 3. Zainul Abedin son of Zahiruddin alias Feku Mian, 4. Md. Nasimuddin son of Md. Manzoor Hassan, 5. Md. Ibrar alias Bhola son of Md. Anwar, 6. Md. Hassan son of Zahiruddin alias Feku Mian, 7. Md. Naimuddin son of Mehboob Mian, 8. Md. Sultan son of Zahiruddin alias Feku Mian, 9. Zahiruddin alias Feku son of Late Habib Mian All are resident of village-Dabbo, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya 10. Imteyaz Ahmad son of Md. Tahir Mian, resident of village-Sherpur, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya 11. Kalimuddin son of Md. Manzoor Hassan, 12. Md. Nehal alias Nehaluddin son of Kamaluddin Both resident of village-Dabbo, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya 13. Khalil Ansari son of Late Kailu Mian, resident of village-Nabinagar, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya 14. Md. Nazim son of Mehboob Mian, resident of village-Dabbo, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya ….Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ….Respondent *** For the appellant : Dr. M. K. Gautam, Advocate & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under sections 323 and 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and further appellant no.1 has been convicted under section 436 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and appellant no.9 is convicted under sections 436 and 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to - 2 - undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1993/412 of 1993 by judgment dated 20.01.1996. 2. The prosecution case according to the complaint is that on 12.03.90 at 5.30 PM when the complainant (PW6) was returning from his field, the appellants variously assaulted him and he was followed by them after which the appellant no.1 burnt the house of the complainant on the instigation of appellant no.9. 3. During trial, seven prosecution witnesses were examined, out of whom, P.W. 1 and 7 are formal witnesses, whereas, P.W.6 is the complainant himself and P.W. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the alleged eye witnesses. 4. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined to show that there was a counter version of the occurrence for which Chandauti P.S. Case No. 32 of 1990 was instituted by the appellant for his house having been burnt by the members of the prosecution party. 5. Initially, First Information Report was instituted in this matter which ended in final report, but on the basis of protest-cum-complaint petition the case proceeded. 6. It has been stated in the complaint itself that the institution of the case was delayed on account of the fact that the complainant had been arrested in the counter case. The present case has been instituted after nineteen days of the occurrence. 7. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that all of them are interested and none of them have explained either the delay in the institution of the present complaint nor the factum of counter version. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prosecution version as true depiction of the manner of occurrence. - 3 - 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of their respective charges. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/- .