Criminal Appeal No.30 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.T. No.147 of 1981/ 174 of 1990] 1. SURAJ RAI SON OF RAM RATI RAI 2. INDRADEO RAI SON OF LATE ASARFI RAI 3. BINDA RAI SON OF RAM RATI RAI, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANPUR, P.S. BHELDI, DISTRICT SARAN ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Arun, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant nos.1 and 2 have been convicted u/s.307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years, whereas appellant no.3 has been convicted u/s.307 I.P.C. and also sentenced to R.I. for five years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.T. No.147 of 1981/ 174 of 1990 by a judgment dated 27.3.1995. 2. The prosecution case is that on 10.7.1980 at about 10 P.M. the appellants came to uproot the palani constructed by the prosecution, where after an altercation arose between them and the appellant no.2 is said to have assaulted P.W.1 with a Barchhi on his stomach and the informant and one Dewan Rai were also assaulted by the accused persons. - 2 - 3. The defence of the appellants was that the Palani belonged to the accused persons and it was the prosecution party, who was attempting to take forcible possession of the same, where after a free fight took place in which members of the accused party were assaulted, which resulted in death of one Asharfi Rai later on. For this counter version a First Information Report was instituted initially u/s.307 I.P.C. to which 302 I.P.C. was later added. 4. During trial the prosecution in all examined four witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the informant and P.W.2 is the informant and both of them are eye witnesses, whereas P.W.3 and P.W.4 are formal witnesses. Neither the Investigating Officer nor the doctor was examined on behalf of the prosecution to substantitate the manner of occurrence. 5. The defence also brought the documents pertaining to the counter version including the fard beyan of Asharfi Rai (later deceased) as Exhibit D and the postmortem examination report in his regard as Exhibit E. 6. On going through the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I find undisputedly that only two material witnesses have been examined, both of whom are interested and there is no independent corroboration of the prosecution case. In the background of the counter version, which is an admitted position, I am not inclined to place complete reliance on the evidence of these two interested witnesses and, therefore, giving - 3 - benefit of doubt to all the three appellants, they are acquitted of the charges. 7. The appeal is thus allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 27.3.1995 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.T. No.147 of 1981/ 174 of 1990 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 12th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )