Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 224 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Jugal Yadav, S/o Sarjug Yadav @ Sargun Yadav. 2. Sushil Yadav, S/o Sarjug Yadav @ Sargun Yadav. 3. Bhagirath Yadav, S/o Sarjug Yadav @ Sargun Yadav. 4. Sarjug Yadav @ Sargun Yadav, S/o Late Natho Yadav. 5. Jira Devi, W/o Sarjug Yadav @ Sargun Yadav. 6. Parmila Devi, W/o Jugal Yadav. 7. Indu Devi, W/o Bhagirath Yadav. 8. Kajra Devi @ Kajoma Devi, W/o Sushil Yadav. All R/o Village-Rampur Dumra, P.S.- Maranchi, District-Patna. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 235 of 1995 1. Chandeshwar Paswan @ Chandra Shekhar Paswan. 2. Raghu Paswan. 3. Sagar Paswan. All are sons of Punit Paswan, R/o Village-Rampur Dumra, Police Station-Maranchi, District-Patna. …….Appellants. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……..(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. S. N. Chaudhary, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 224 of 1995 have been convicted under Sections 323 and 294 IPC and the appellants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been sentenced to RI for three months respectively and the appellants No. 5, 6, 7 2 and 8 have been released on Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted also under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years. The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 235 of 1995 have been convicted under Sections 323 and 294 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year and three months respectively by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barh in S.Tr. No. 553 of 1994 by a judgment dated 12.09.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 2 is that on 01.11.1993 when she was in her house along with her husband the accused persons entered into her house and abused her and charged her and the deceased Siya Devi of having killed the sister having done black magic. She was allegedly also burnt by the accused persons with heated rods. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the husband of the informant and P.W. 2 is the informant herself. P.W. 3 is the husband of deceased, Siya Devi whereas P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are on the second part of the occurrence. P.W. 8 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased, Siya Devi whereas P.W. 9 is the Doctor who examined the deceased and P.W. 10 is the Doctor who examined the injured informant. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 are the two Investigating Officers. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were tendered witnesses whereas P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were declared hostile. P.W. 3 is the husband of the deceased, Siya 3 Devi but even he did not support the fact that her death had been caused on account of assault by the appellants whereas he admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased had died on account of tetanus after thirteen days of the occurrence. Thus only the Court is left with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are the husband and the wife and have supported the prosecution case. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W. 10 who is the Doctor, I find that he has fully corroborated the prosecution case that he had seen injuries on the person of P.W. 2 having been caused by some hot substance. P. W. 1 who is the husband of P.W. 2 has also given very convincing testimony with regard to the occurrence and, therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. 5. However, the period already undergone by the appellants during trial shall be sufficient in the interest of justice. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the modification as aforesaid. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 19th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-