Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.64 OF 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1992) ---------- 1. SANJIV YADAV @ SANJIV KUMAR YADAV, SON OF LATE BISHWA NATH PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARAN POLICE STATION, BIHRA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 2. UMESH PRASAD DAHLAN, SON OF CHANDI DAHLAN, RESIDENT OF SAHARSA POLICE STATION SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 3. ARUN YADAV @ ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SON OF LAKSHMI PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF ARAN POLICE STATION BIHRA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 4. SUSHIL YADAV @ SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV SON OF VINAY KUMAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF GANGA JALA POLICE STATION, SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 5. RAM PUKAR YADAV, SON OF GOHAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF BHELWA POLICE STATION, SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 6. BAL KISHORE YADAV @ BALKISHORE PRASAD YADAV, SON OF BISHWA NATH YADAV, RESIDENT OF ARAN POLICE STATION, BIHRA, DISTT. SAHARSA. 7. KUSHI LAL YADAV @ KHUSHI LAL YADAV, SON OF MAHARAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF ARAN POLICESTATION-BIHRA DISTT. SAHARSA -------APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -----------RESPONDENT ----------- For Appellants : Mr. Shashidhar Jha, Adv. Mr. Madhav Pd. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar No. 5, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman” A.P.P. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The Appellants No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and in addition the Appellant No. 5 has also been convicted under Section 225 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after conviction of the 2 Appellants No. 3 and 7 under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, they were released on probation under Section 360 Cr. P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant (PW-6) is that while he was posted as J.S.I. at Bihra Police Station on 9.10.1989 and was looking after the law and order situation on occasion of Durga Puja festival, the Appellants arrived there and tried to disturb the peaceful gathering and when they were rounded up, Appellant No. 3 managed to flee away whereas Appellant No. 7 was caught right there. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses out of whom PW-6 is the Informant whereas PW-8 is said to have one of the victims and PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. PW-1, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 have been declared hostile whereas PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have been tendered. It appears that PW-8 who was the victim as per the prosecution case was agnate of some of the Appellants and was also inimical to them. Also none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 4. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1992 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, is hereby set aside. 5. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 20th June, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI