Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.114 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991/ 119 of 1996] Sadhan Paul alias Sadhan Pal, son of Nazwashi Pal, resident of Village Kanchan colony Raiganj, Police Station Raiganj, District West Dinazpur, West Bengal …………………….. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Upendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/ss.307 and 414 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for four years and two years respectively by a judgment dated 20.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991/ 119 of 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Havaldar Ahmad Khan of Palrampur Police Station is that on 12.5.1991 while he along with A.S.I. Sadsher Jha, some dafadars and choukidars were proceeding for election duty and had seized some trucks for the same, a Thela was found going towards Dalkola check post and when the informant asked the rickshawpuller to stop, the persons sitting on the Thela started to run. When they were chased by the police party as well as the rickshawpuller, the rickshawpuller was assaulted by one of the persons and again ran away. However, he was apprehended one 2 kilometer away and thereafter remanded in the present case. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses but neither the informant nor the doctor could be examined. P.W.1 is the Chaukidar, who supported the manner of occurrence and also that the appellant was apprehended after one kilometer. He also identified the appellant in the dock. P.W.2 also likewise supported the fact given by P.W.1. P.W.5 is the rickshawpuller, who stated that it was the appellant, who had given a chhura blow and ran away but was apprehended later on. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer, who is more or less formal in nature. Even though there is consistent eye witness account by way of P.W.2 and P.W.4 that it was the appellant, who had assaulted P.W.5, but I find that there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the injury sustained by P.W.5. 4. In view of such, I am inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s.307 I.P.C. and instead convicted him u/s.324 I.P.C. but the period already undergone by him during trial shall be sufficient punishment in the interest of justice. As for the conviction of the appellant u/s.414 I.P.C. apart from his own confessional statement that the article was stolen, there is no material to support the same and therefore he is acquitted of the said charge. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Patna High Court Dated, 1st July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )