Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.105 of 1996 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1996 and 6.4.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No.5 of 1993] Mohan Yadav son of Late Sunar Raut, resident of village Karan Patti, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran …………………….. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Akhileshwar Kr.Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/s.304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by a judgment dated 3.4.1996 and 6.4.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No.5 of 1993. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Rameshwar Yadav (P.W.7) is that on 3.1.1992 after the Panch had decided a dispute between the parties the accused persons variously armed came upon their lands and assaulted Fuldeo Yadav with an arrow, on account of which he later died. After his death, Section 302 I.P.C. was added and the appellant was charged also under the said offence but acquitted of the said charge and convicted as mentioned above. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are alleged eye witnesses, whereas 2 P.W.12 and P.W.13 are formal witnesses and P.W.9 is the doctor, who proved the injuries of the defence side and the rest of the formal witnesses. P.W.11 is the Police Officer, who had recorded the statement of the deceased Fuldeo Yadav. 4. The defence of the appellant was that in fact the prosecution party had aggressed upon the lands and this occurrence had taken place in right of private defence of property. The Trial Court had also accepted this proposition and, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the charge u/s.302 I.P.C. 5. From the evidence of the witnesses, I find that no doubt there is consistency on the fact that the appellant had shot an arrow which hit the deceased, who later died, but from this act of the appellant it can not be safely concluded that he had knowledge that such an act would cause the death of the deceased. Moreover, the fact that it was the prosecution party which was the aggressor can not be denied. In view of the background facts, in the interest of justice the conviction of the appellant is converted to one u/s.325 I.P.C. from one u/s.304 Part II I.P.C. and the sentence is modified to the one he has already undergone during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications in sentence. Patna High Court Dated, 7th July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )