Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.398 OF 1994 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.1994 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1981/78 of 1990) 1. SURENDRA CHAUDHARY @ SOOR PASI, SON OF JAGLAL PASI, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MAHARAJGANJ, P.S. CHAPRA, MUFFASIL, DISTT. SARAN. 2. JAGLAL PASI, SON OF DEO RAJ CHOUDHARY, RESIENTS OF VILLAGE MAHARAJGANJ, P.S. CHAPRA, MUFFASIL, DISTT. SARAN ----- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------RESPONDENT For the Appellants : Mr. Pawan Kumar Keshri, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: Heard. The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively whereas the Appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by a Judgment dated 13.12.1994 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1981/78 of 1990. The statement of the Informant Lal Babu Rai given at the Hospital is that he was returning home after purchasing she buffalo, an altercation arose between the parties in which while 2 the Appellant No. 2 caught hold of Rajendra Singh, Appellant No. 1 gave a lathi blow on the back of the Informant Lal Babu Rai who fell down whereafter he was again assaulted with lathi on his head and hand. In the meanwhile, the Appellant No. 1 also gave a dagger blow on the neck of Rajendra Sinngh whereas the Appellant No. 2 committed theft of ` 3,000/- and a watch. The prosecution examined five witnesses in all out of whom PW-1 is the injured whereas PW-2 is an eye witness. PW-3 was declared hostile. PW-4 is the Informant. PW-5 is formal witnesses. Neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer was examined. The defence of the Appellants was that there was a counter version of this occurrence and a counter case had been instituted by the accused and the matter has been compromised between the parties. Having gone through the evidence of three witnesses, I am of the view that they have materially contradicted themselves and have denied the factum of the counter version which alone is enough to disbelieve the prosecution case as not being the true story of the occurrence. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1981/78 of 1990 by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra, is hereby set aside. 3 The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 8th April, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)