Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 259 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Ram Ashan Singh, S/o Rampati Singh. 2. Ram Raj Singh, S/o Godhan Singh. 3. Sidul Singh @ Sudarsah Singh, S/o Late Moti Singh. 4. Ramjit Singh, S/o Godhan Singh. 5. Lalla Singh @ Lalli @ Lallu @ Lallu Singh, S/o Late Ramjanam Singh. 6. Ganpat Singh, S/o Hari Kishun Singh. All R/o Village-Kasdiha, P.O.-Pawar, P.S.-Sandesh, District-Bhojpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Jay Shankar Prasad, Adv. For the State : Ms. Gumar Begum, 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 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 10 of 1987 by a judgment dated 06.12.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.1986 at about 5 P.M. when the buffalo of the accused persons grazed the sugar-cane field of the informant it was protested by him upon which the accused persons variously armed assaulted the informant and others. 3. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is a seizure witness, P.W. 4 is the informant, P.W. 5 is the mother of the informant, P.W. 3 is the Doctor who examined the injured. P.W. 8 is formal witness. P.W. 9 is tendered whereas the rest of the witnesses are on the factum of occurrence. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are the 2 two injured witnesses and admittedly P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are relatives and have deposed as an evidence in the present occurrence. P.W. 11 the Investigating Officer from whose evidence it appears that there was land dispute between the parties and a counter- version was initiated on account of which version given out by the accused persons. 4. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that they have not taken pains to explain the injuries on the accused Ramjit Singh which is admitted by P.W. 3, the Doctor who found multiple injuries on the person of Appellant No. 2. Further the First Information Report appears to have been sent to the Judicial Officer three days after the occurrence which cast a serious doubt in the prosecution case in the background of the present case. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.12.1995 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 10/1987 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 25th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-