Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 128 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.7.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 1986/ 259 of 1995 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah. ****** 1. AKHILANAND PANDEY S/O RAM LAKHAN PANDEY 2. SUNIL PANDEY S/O AKHILANAND PANDEY 3. TRIPURARI PANDEY S/O RAM LAKHAN PANDEY ALL R/O VILLAGE- JIRIYA, P.S.- LAURIYA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Adv. : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Adv. For the State : Mr. AMP Mehta APP. For the Respondents : Mr. S.C. Jha : Mr. Raja Vishnu Deo P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 323 and 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and 3 years respectively as also under Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment whereas appellant no. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 326/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellant no. 1 has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- to the informant and in default of which 1 year rigorous imprisonment by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 1986/ 259 of 1995 by the judgment dated 10.7.1995. 2. The prosecution case is that on 31.5.1985, when the informant found the accused persons digging a parti land he protested over the same, at which the appellant no. 1 got enraged and fired at him causing injury on his chest. When the informant fell down the appellant no. 2 and 3 also reportedly assaulted him. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses out of whom P.W. 6 is the doctor who examined the informant whereas P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 2 and 3 were the First Information Report named witnesses, whereas P.W. 4 and 5 are the two injured witnesses, P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses on the factum of occurrence. 4. The defence also proved certain documents on the point that in fact on the same date the appellant no. 1 and 2 had been variously assaulted by the prosecution party and the land in fact belong to the accused persons on the basis of a deed of gift. 5. On going through the evidence of the prosecution, I find that there is complete denial of the counter version and the fact that the appellants had also sustained injuries in the same transaction. This point alone is enough to discard the prosecution since evidently it has not given a truthful version of the occurrence as it happened. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 1986/ 259 of 1995 by the judgment dated 10.7.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. However, if the fine has been paid to the informant, on account of long lapse of time, the same may not be refunded to Appellant no.1. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.