Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 178 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Sanjay Sharma. 2. Shankar Sharma. 3. Ajay Sharma. All Sons of late Kapildeo Sharma. 4. Rajeshwar Sharma. 5. Hari Narain Sharma. 6. Abhinandan Sharma. All Sons of Late Sitaram Sharma. 7. Murari Sharma. 8. Shatish Sharma. 9. Sheonath Sharma. All Sons of Hari Narain Sharma. All R/o Village-Patar, P.S.-Sarai, District-Vaishali. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Sri Nandan Pd. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Manoj Kumar-I, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.C. Mishra, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 307 and 380 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years and one year respectively as also he has been convicted along with the rest of the appellants under Sections 452 and 323 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year and six months respectively by a judgment dated 31.08.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 293 of 1989/153/92. 2. The prosecution case is that the informant, P.W. 2 had recently sold her land but the 2 accused persons demanding ragdari for the same and on 01.09.1988 they all entered into her house and the appellant No. 1 is said to have a Tengari blow on the head of the informant on account of which she sustained injury and the rest of the accused persons committed theft of money. 3. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is husband of the informant who came soon after the occurrence on his wife’s cries and saw the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the informant herself. P.W. 3 has been tendered. P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 5 is formal in nature. The Doctor has not been examined but the injury report has been marked as Exhibit 3. 4. From perusal of Exhibit 3 it appears that P.W. 2 had sustained a superficial injury on the head and there were other superficial injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. The Investigating Officer has supported the fact that he had seen the bolt having been broken in the house of P.W. 2. However, he has also stated that no independent witness had come forth to support the prosecution case. Since P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have in all aspects supported the case and they appear completely trustworthy, I am inclined to accept their version. Further, the Investigating Officer had also 3 corroborated the prosecution case through the objective evidence. 5. However, the conviction of the appellant No. 1 is converted to one under Section 323 IPC from one under Section 307 and all the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them during trial under Sections 323, 380 and 452 IPC. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 26th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-