Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.80 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.2.1994 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No.370 of 1989/ 48 of 1991] 1. WAKIL RAI @ BIGAN RAI SON OF DHARAMDEO ROY 2. BHARAT RAY SON OF RAMDEO ROY OF VILLAGE SADHPUR, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA ------------------------- Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------------------- Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Bhupendra Nr. Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants are aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.2.1994 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No.370 of 1989/ 48 of 1991, by which he has convicted the appellants u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced them to 3 years R.I. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 5.12.1987 while the informant and others were walking near their house the accused persons suddenly came there and assaulted them without any reason. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are material witnesses, who were injured in the transaction and P.W.6 is a doctor, who examined them. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are witnesses, who supported the prosecution case, whereas P.W.8 is tendered witness and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. On going through the evidence on record and the - 2 - judgment of conviction, I find that the main argument of the defence was that the persons on the side of the accused were also injured in the transaction and the prosecution had not offered any explanation with regard to their injuries. P.W.6, who had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2, the injured of the present case, had also examined the two accused persons, so the fact that the accused persons were also injured could not be denied by the prosecution. I also find from the evidence of the witnesses that there are material contradictions in their evidence and there is no explanation as to how the occurrence erupted as also that the Investigating Officer did not find any objective evidence with regard to the occurrence at the place of occurrence. Since it has already been held by the Apex Court repeatedly that non- examination of the injuries of the accused would create a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and in view of the fact only interested witnesses have been examined in the present case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case is doubtful. Hence for the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 19.2.1994 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No.370 of 1989/ 48 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 29th March, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )