Criminal Appeal No.40 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.138 of 1991/ 56 of 1991] 1. NAGESHWAR MUKHIYA, SON OF CHETHARU MUKHIYA 2. CHETHARU MUKHIYA, SON OF BHAJJU MUKHIYA 3. KAUSHALYA DEVI, WIFE OF CHETHARU MUKHIYA, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARIHA NAVTOL, POLICE STATION SUPAUL, DISTRICT SUPAUL ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and all of them were given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and in addition to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to the victim Arahul Devi by way of compensation by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.138 of 1991/ 56 of 1991 by a judgment dated 4.4.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.6 Arahul Devi was married to one Shatrughan Mukhiya but after his death she was married with her own brother-in-law Nageshwar Mukhiya and lived with him as second wife. A property dispute arose between the parties over execution of sale deed and thereafter she was attempted to be driven out from the house for which she was variously slapped and fisted by the accused persons on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.12.1989. - 2 - 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.6 is the informant-cum-victim of the case, whereas the P.W.1 is merely on the factum of relationship between the accused persons and the informant. P.W.2 is a hearsay witness and P.W.3 is the next door neighbour, who went to the place of occurrence after the occurrence and did not support the actual commission of the occurrence. P.W.4 is also similarly only on the point of relationship between the parties. P.W.5 is a hearsay witness. 4. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined on the point of relationship between the parties and the nature of dispute between them. 5. On going through the evidence of the sole eye witness i.e. P.W.6, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the appellants only on her own oral evidence, which is full of discrepancies and contradictions. 4. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 4.4.1995 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.138 of 1991/ 56 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 5th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )