Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 191 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Lalu Rai, S/o Raj Narayan Rao. 2. Basu Rai, S/o Ram Gulam Rai. Both R/o Village- Bahrampur, Police Station-Raghopur, District-Vaishali. 3. Bauri Rai, S/o Keshwar Rai, R/o Village-Niyazipur, Police Station-Fatuha, District-Patna at present Mohalla Dariapur Police Station-Fatuha, District-Patna. 4. Sakaldeep Rai, S/o Ram Gulam Rai. 5. Lagandeo Rai, S/o Basu Rai. 6. Kishundeo Rai, S/o Rajnarayan Rai. R/o Village- Bahrampur, Police Station-Ragopur, District-Vaishali. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad-II, Adv. For the State : Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 IPC and sentenced to five years RI by a judgment dated 06.09.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 147 of 1991. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.1979 the accused persons variously armed entered into the “Bathan” of the informant and variously assaulted him, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 are formal whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 are witnesses on the factum of occurrence. P.W. 2, however, has been disbelieved by the Trial Court. P.W. 6 is the informant. Admittedly, neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined by the prosecution. 4. The defence on its behalf proved a certain document to show that there was counter-version of the occurrence in which the accused persons had been assaulted by the prosecution party. 5. Admittedly, there is land dispute between the parties which is evident from Exhibits A and B which shows that there was Title Suit pending between the parties as also a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The admitted position is that all the witnesses are relatives inter se and highly interested. No independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution either as a corroborative witness or as an eye-witness. 6. From the narration of the eye-witnesses account, I find that it is difficult to conclude that in fact the appellants had intended to cause the death of the two injured. Also, in view of the non-production of the Doctor the injuries sustained by the two injured have remained unproved. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.09.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 147 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 21st April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-