Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.88 OF 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.04.1996 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1991. *** 1. HAIDAR ALI TIPPU son of Bilayat Ali & 2. Umar Ali Tippu Son of Haider Ali Tippu, both resident of village- Churamba, P.S.- Kotwali, Moffasil, Munger …Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mosomat Noorjahan Begum W/o Late Salauddin, r/o village- Churamba, P.O.-Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger …Respondents *** For the appellants : Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate & Mr. Bhagwati Saran Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. For the respondent no.2: Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under sections 436/109 Indian Penal Code and the appellant no.2 has been convicted under section 436 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees one thousand each to be payable to the informant by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No.444 of 1991 by judgment dated 16.04.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.1990 while the informant was in her hut the accused persons came armed with Lathi, Bhala and began to abuse her and threw her out of the hut and then lit fire on her hut. - 2 - 3. To substantiate the charge, five witnesses were examined during trial out of whom the complainant and one Binoy Kumar Malakar deposed as Court Witness, whereas, P.W.1, brother of the informant was declared hostile, P.W.2 is the Doctor, who examined the informant Noorjahan, and found simple injuries on her person. P.W.3 is said to have come at the place of occurrence on halla. 4. The informant during trial could not substantiate the fact that the hut had been constructed by her husband or it belonged to her. Similarly, Binoy Kumar Malakar, who was court witness, stated that he did not have any personal knowledge of the fact that the hut belonged to the informant. In absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, who arrived after the occurrence, and the objective evidence with regard to burning of the hut, I am unable to accept the prosecution case as having been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence of doubtful witnesses. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed and both the appellants are acquitted of their respective charges. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-