Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 27 OF 1994 In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Sujindra Singh @ Surendra Singh @ Sujindra Kurmi (Singh). 2. Nawal Kishore Singh @ Nawal Singh, Both sons of Anand Lal Singh, R/o Village Ramnibigha, P.S.-Dhanarua, District- Patna.-------------- (Appellants). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Ram Phal Sah, S/o Jagan Sah R/o Vill-Ramnibigha, P.S. – Dhanarua, Distt.-Patna. ---------------(Respondent) ************ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************* Anjana Prakash, J. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellants that he has no instructions in the matter and, therefore, is unable to assist the Court. In view of such, the appeal is being heard without his assistance. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 460 and 380 IPC and sentenced to 10 years RI and 7 years RI respectively by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna by judgment dated 29.01.1994 in S.Tr. No. 95/81. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.1980 at 6.30 P.M. accused persons entered into the house of the informant and variously assaulted him as also committed theft. Five witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution but they all happened to be family members of the informant and there was some kind of enmity between the parties as was conceded by the informant. However, it appears that neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer was examined. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer in the facts of the case would be fatal to the prosecution since only interested witnesses were examined and there was further need in corroboration through the independent source of the prosecution case. Since there is a specific allegation of assault having been made on PW 1 the non-corroboration of the injury sustained by her would deal a major blow on the prosecution case. Moreover, the non-examination of independent witnesses who were expected to be present around the vicinity since the occurrence had taken place at 6.30 P.M. is also a major lapse in the present case. On account of the discussion made above, I am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 29.01.1994 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 95/81. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. The appeal stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 28th March, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-