Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 198 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.9.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 88/234 of 91 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj. ****** 1. ADALAT CHOUDHARY S/O SHIV PRASHAN CHOUDHARY 2. RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY S/O BASAWAN CHOUDHARY 3. GANESH CHOUDHARY S/O BASAWAN CHOUDHARY 4. JANKI AHIR @ JANKI CHOUDHARY S/O KOURI CHOUDHARY 5. NARESH AHIR @ RAM NARESH CHOUDHARY S/O JANKI AHIR 6. SURAJ CHOUDHARY @ SURYA CHOUDHARY S/O SHIV PARSAN CHOUDHARY 7. SUDAMA CHOUDHARY S/O SHIV PARSAN CHOUDHARY 8. KISHORE CHOUDHARY S/O BASAWAN CHOUDHARY 9. SURESH CHOUDHARY S/O JANKI AHIR ALL R/O VILLAGE- SHIRISHIA, P.S.- BHORAY, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Abhimanhu sharma Adv. : Mr. R.P. Choudhary Adv. For the State : Mr. A.M.P. APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 436, 357, 147, 447 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years, 2 years, 1 year and 3 months respectively whereas the appellant nos. 4 to 9 have been convicted under Section 447 and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and 2 years respectively by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj by the judgment dated 11.9.1995passed in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 88/234 of 91. 2. The informant who is Executive Magistrate reported that on 9.6.1986 at about 2:15 p.m. when he went to inspect a disputed land which was subject matter of 145 (6) Cr.P.C. proceedings, the appellants instead of abiding by the courts order set fire to the huts standing there. They also attempted to assault the police force but they were dispersed by a counter firing made by the police party of the Executive Magistrate. 3. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses and brought on record a number of documents, P.W. 10 is a formal witnesses whereas P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the informant, P.W. 2 to 7 are the eye- witnesses of the occurrence and P.W. 1 is a formal witness. 4. The defence of the appellants was that in fact 145 Cr.P.C. had been wrongly set aside by the court and therefore, they were justified in not complying with the illegal order since it was a question of that dispossession from their own lands. Where as the rest of the witnesses who have been examined apparently appear to be the parties in the Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings and are evidently interested. The evidence of the informant is also completely deficient on material particulars as to the exact nature of overt acts committed by the appellants and it is also not reliable since admittedly the informant did not know the accused persons from before. Their names evidently were given only by the interested witnesses who accompanied the Executive Magistrate. 5. In the result, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case in its entirety and the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 436, 353 and 447 I.P.C. but their conviction under Section 147 I.P.C. is maintained. However, the period already undergone by them during trial it will be sufficient in the interest of justice. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed with the modifications mentioned above. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 22nd April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.