Criminal Appeal No.211 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.366 of 1990] 1. FAUJDAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAM KISHUN YADAV 2. RAM BAHADUR YADAV SON OF SIYA YADAV 3. SIYA YADAV SON OF LATE MAHI RAVAN YADAV 4. GHAN SHYAM YADAV SON OF FOCHAN YADAV 5. CHHOTELAL YADAV SON OF FOCHAN YADAV 6. CHHARPAN YADAV ALIAS SHATRUGHAN YADAV SON OF MEDNI YADAV 7. MEDNI YADAV SON OF LATE RAM KISHUN YADAV 8.FOCHAN YADAV SON OF LATE RAM KISHUN YADAV, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BIRA TOLE, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mrs. Mira Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kr. Singh No.5, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant no.1 has been convicted u/sa.324 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years and six months respectively, whereas appellant nos.6 and 8 have been convicted u/s.324/149 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and six months respectively and the rest appellant nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have been convicted u/ss.324/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and six months respectively by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.366 of 1990 by a judgment dated - 2 - 22.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.1989 when he was cleaning his door, the appellants came to his door and insisted that he withdraw the case instituted against them and when he resisted he was assaulted by the appellants with bamboo sticks. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the uncle of the informant. P.W.2 is the cousin of the informant. P.W.3 is the father of the informant. P.W.4 is the informant himself. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined the injuries of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and opined that they were all simple in nature. 4. On behalf of the defence, some documents were brought on record to show that there was a counter version of the occurrence as also the fact of a Title Suit pending between the parties vide Exhibit A and B. 5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that there is complete denial of the counter version and the fact that there was land dispute pending between them is not denied. In view of the fact that no independent witness has been examined even though the occurrence had taken place in full public view, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of the interested witnesses. - 3 - 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 22.8.1996 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.366 of 1990 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 19th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )