CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 34 OF 1998 ( In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 20th January, 1998 and order of sentence dated 22th January, 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 1988/ 02 of 1991 by Shri Surendra Prasad Sharma, 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran). ********** 1. DWARIKA PRASAD, SON OF GULI RAM 2. SHARMA TIWARY, SON OF AMARJIT TIWARY 3. DHRUB PRASAD, SON OF GULI RAM 4. PRAJAPATI MISHRA, SON OF RAMJI MISHRA 5. SABHAPATI MISHRA, SON OF RAMJI MISHRA 6. MADHO TIWARY, SON OF JOGI TIWARY 7. JOGI TIWARY, SON OF RAM DATT TIWARY 8. KRISHNA TIWARY, SON OF SHARMA TIWARY ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MANANPUR, POLICE STATION GOVINDGANJ, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……………… ………APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ………………………………..RESPONDENT ************ FOR THE APPELLANTS :- MR. YOGESH CHANDRA VERMA, SR. ADV. MR. SATISH KUMAR SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE INFORMANT :- MR. SHAKTI SUMAN KUMAR, ADCOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. RAJENDRA NATH JHA, A.P.P. ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. There are eight appellants before this Court who have challenged the order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 1988/2 of 1991 on 22nd January, 1998 by the 5th 2 Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. This appeal is being heard in presence of Counsel for the appellant, the informant and the State. Appellant no. 1 and 2 have been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years each under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Appellant no. 1 is further convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest of the appellants have been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence us 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. There is a case and counter case, although the parties fairly submit that in the counter case the informant’s parties have been acquitted. There are two places of occurrence in this case. It is stated that about 7 AM, 11 persons named in the First Information Report were removing the ridge between the plots of land in the field which resulted into a dispute and it is again alleged that the appellants went to the house of the informant and began firing. There is no conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The reason for the occurrence is an admitted land dispute. There are a series of documents to show that the land dispute exists between the parties and that 3 the appellants claim that they were validly in possession of the land in question. The appellants have exhibited the plaint of the Title Suit No. 43 of 1990, original sale deed with respect to the lands, judgment and decree in the title suit, certified copy of khatiyan, map of the land in question along with the cases before the Court of Revenue, the High Court and documents relating to the counter case. The case of the prosecution is that they are bonafidee owners and there was an attempt by the other side to take possession over their lands which resulted into the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that even though there is an order of the acquittal in the counter case, their remains no dispute to the fact that some sort of occurrence took place in which both the parties have received injuries. In can not be doubted that the injuries inflicted by the appellants are more serious in nature then the injuries that were inflicted by the informant party on the appellants. However, the doctor has examined the injuries and found them to be simple in nature caused by pellets fired from fire-arms. In view of the evidence as well as the findings of the doctor with respect to the injuries, this Court finds that the appellants are liable for conviction under Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. An application has been filed under Section 320 of the 4 Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of this case by the informant stating that the matter has been compromised between the parties outside the Court and as such this Court may grant leave to the parties to compromise dispute in this appeal. In view of the application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court allows the prayer for compromise of the case. Since the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court, this appeal has become infructuous and in view of the compromise, the appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished before the Trial Court in this case. In the result, this appeal is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) Patna High Court Dated, the 27th March, 2009 N.A.F.R./Anand