Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 32 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1991.) ------------ 1. RAM PHAL YADAV, SON OF SRI RASH BIHARI YADAV 2. INDRADEO @ INDRA NARAYAN YADAV 3. BASUDEO YADAV @ BASUDEO PRASAD YADAV 4. NANDAN KUMAR @ NANDAN KUMAR YADAV ALL SONS OF SRI RAM PHAL YADAV. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOURA, RAM NAGAR, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DISTT. MADHIPURA. 5. MANI KANT MANDAL, SON OF LATE KALLAR MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAVE BHAILWA, TOLA TARAIYA, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DISTT. MADHIPURA 6. SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA SON OF SRI BISHWA NATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MOUJA MOURA, TOLA BAIR, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DISTT. MADHIPURA. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. R.C. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Murlidhar, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and also under Sections 341, 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months and one year under each count by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhpura, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1991 by a judgment dated 6.1.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Singheshwar Yadav is that a theft had been committed in his house on the night of 19/20.8.1989 by unknown persons and on 18.10.1989, he noticed that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.32 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 2 Appelant Satyanarain Sharma was going on a stolen motorcycle which he identified when he started questioning him, the accused persons variously armed came there and assaulted the Informant on account of which he was injured. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom PW-1 is formal witness, PW-2 has been declared hostile whereas PW-3 has taken the name of only two accused persons and, thereafter, stated that there were 100 persons who had assembled there on hulla. PW-4 is the Informant, PW-5 is the Doctor and PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. 3. On going through the evidence of sole eye witness, I find that on 18.10.1989 when he accosted Satyanarain at having stolen his cycle and changed the handle of the same to conceal its identity, the accused persons arrived there and assaulted the Informant for having made such an allegation. The Doctor found as many as 12 injuries on the person of the Informant but most of them were bruises on non vital parts. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer who did not recover any stolen article from the possession of any of the Appellants, thus, belying the earlier case of theft. However, considering that PW-4 has supported the factum of assault by the Appellants which stood further corroborated by the PW- 5, the Doctor, in my opinion, there is sufficient material to convict the Appellants for the assault having made on the Informant. 4. However, in the facts of the case, in my opinion, the Appellants did not have the intention to cause the death of the Informant and, therefore, they are acquitted of the charge under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants are also acquitted of the charge under Sections 341, 380 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code since the ingredients of the said offences have remained unproved. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.32 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 3 5. However, in the facts of the case, the Appellants are convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 6. The Appeal is thus dismissed with the aforesaid modifications in sentences. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.