Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 130 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Janardan Singh, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh. 2. Mahesh Singh, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh. 3. Prahlad Singh, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh. 4. Ganesh Singh, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh. 5. Karu Singh, S/o Uchit Singh. 6. Dara Singh, S/o Shital Singh. 7. Dilip Singh, S/o Narayan Singh. 8. Narayan Singh, S/o Late Hari Mohan Singh. 9. Prakash Singh, S/o Uchit Singh. All R/o Village-Bhithi, Police Station-Sabour, District-Bhagalpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. R.P. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 324 and 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years under each count whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 324/149 IPC and also under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year under Section 147 IPC no separate sentence has been passed under Section 324/149 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 246 of 1988 by a judgment dated 26.06.1995. 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.1986 when the informant was warming himself by the side of a fire the accused persons came there and started abusing him. It is further alleged that the appellant No. 1 fired at him which hit in right side of the chest on account of which he was injured and removed to the hospital. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 is the Doctor. P.W. 4 is the brother of the informant but hearsay and has been rejected by the Trial Court. P.W. 6 is on the point that the parties were inimical to each other and that the cases were pending against them. P.W. 3 is on the point of arriving after the occurrence. He has also stated that there was counter-case in which 33 persons were named accused. P.W. 5 is the informant himself. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are on the factum of occurrence but P.W. 1 has stated that he is an accused in the counter-case and was on an inimical terms with the accused. 4. From the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 7, I find that even though in his evidence he stated that two injuries sustained by the injured were caused by fire arm but in cross-examination he admitted that he had not mentioned the nature of weapon in the injury report. He also did not opine about the nature of injury 3 and there was no final report with regard to the same after the X-ray was conducted. 5. From the evidence of all the material witnesses, I find that they have admitted the factum of active enmity between the parties and they themselves were accused in the counter-case instituted by the defence. 6. In absence of any further corroboration from independent sources it is difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellant in the testimony of interested witnesses. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 26.06.1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 246 of 1988 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 3rd May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-