Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 264 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Judagi Ram, S/o Ruplal Ram. 2. Duryudhar Ram, S/o Triveni Ram. 3. Shiv Kumar Ram, S/o Laljee Ram. 4. Kishun Ram, S/o Lalji Ram. 5. Rajendra Ram, S/o Makhoo Ram @ Bhakhoo Ram. 6. Lalkeshwar Ram, S/o Naurangi Ram. 7. Ram Chandra Mistri, S/o Chitrasen Mistri. 8. Radheshyam Mistri, S/o Ram Bishun Mistri. 9. Arjun Paswan @ Anuj Paswan, S/o Sawambhar Paswan. 10. Tetar Ram, S/o Naurangi Ram. All R/o Larho, P.S.-Dhanarua, Distt.-Patna. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Informant :Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. :Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sonidh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 307, 395 and 353 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years, six months and one year respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in S.Tr. No. 542/85/16/1987 by a judgment dated 18.08.1994. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.03.1984 about 300-400 persons, out of which the appellants were also amongst them, came and fired at the villagers and harvested the paddy which had been sown by them. However, the mob could not take away the paddy. 3. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W.2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are eye witnesses. P.W. 7 was a police personnel who was posted near the village and has supported the factum of 2 attempt to loot by the accused persons. P.W. 8 is also on the factum of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 4. Even though the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 IPC I find that apart from a bald allegation that the accused had resorted to firing there is no objective evidence in support of the same since neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined. It is also admitted position that no crops were looted away and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 395 IPC has no basis. There is only oral evidence that the appellants were firing which is not believable since the admitted case is that there were 300-400 persons in the mob. Hence I am not inclined to accept the eye witnesses on this allegation. 5. Also since no document has been proved by the prosecution to show that the lands rightfully belonged to them I am not inclined to uphold the conviction under Section 353 IPC. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 18.08.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in S.Tr. No. 542/85/16/1987 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 5th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-