Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 18 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1996 passed by Sri B.K. Pandey, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 243 of 1986. ************ 1. Sundar Kapri, S/o Late Doman Kapri. 2. Sashi Kapri, S/o Sundar Kapri. 3. Sardari Kapri @ Sardari Mandal, S/o Harihar Marar. 4. Deep Narayan Mandal, S/o Sardari Kapri. All resident of Village-Samukhia, Police Station- Banka, District-Banka. 5. Fekan Mandal alias Marar, S/o Budhu Mandal. 6. Shankar Mandal alias Marar son of Fekan Marar. Both resident of Chorbai, Police Station-Amarpur, District-Banka. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections 148 and 307 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and seven years and appellant Nos. 3 to 6 have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to RI for six months and the appellant Nos. 2 to 6 have also been convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year whereas all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 452 and 380 IPC and sentenced to two years RI under each count by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 243 of 1986 by a judgment dated 23.12.1996. 2 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 2, Gobardhan Kapri, the informant is that on the night of 23/24.07.1984 while he was sleeping in his house along with his uncle P.W. 3, Sudin Kapri and his son P.W. 4, Balram Kapri in the courtyard his neighbours came to his house and asked P.W. 3, Sudin Kapri as to why he did not allow them to plough the fields at which the uncle stated that the panches had decided not to plough the fields. At this the accused persons who were variously armed got enraged and then Sundar Kapri threw a bomb which hit at the hand and left cheek of P.W. 3, Sudin Kapri on account of which he became injured and the accused thereafter started to commit theft of household articles. When P.W. 1, the aunt of the informant protested she was assaulted by Sardari Kapri and Deep Narain Mandal. The appellant Shankar Kapri is said to have given a lathi blow on the head of the cousin of the informant namely Balram Kapri, P.W. 4. The reason for the occurrence was that some litigation on account of land was going on between the parties in Court. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, Chania Devi is the aunt of the informant whereas P.W. 2, Gobardhan Kapri is the informant. P.W. 5 is the Doctor Devendra Singh who examined the injured Sudin Kapri, 3 P.W. 3, Chania Devi, P.W. 1, P.W. 4 Balram Kapri, P.W. 7, Baisakhi Mandal, P.W. 8, Jugal Thakur and P.W. 9, Rohin Kapri are the neighbours of the informant who came on alarm of the informant have been tendered by the prosecution whereas P.W. 6, Samir Kumar Sinha is a formal witness. P.W. 7, Baisakhi Mandal stated that when he came to the house of the informant he saw the three injured but none of them disclosed any names of them at which he was declared hostile. 4. The defence also examined three witnesses in its support that the occurrence had taken place in the dark night and none of the witnesses had disclosed the names to their neighbours who came on hulla. D.W. 1, Janardan Manjhi stated that he did not identify any miscreants. D.W. 2, Ghutar Sah also stated likewise. D.W. 3, Bindeshwar Pandit stated that when he went to the place of occurrence after the same he found three injured but no names were disclosed. 5. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case it is an admitted position that there was land dispute between the parties and the accused are close agnates of the informant and his family members. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to say that the appellants were involved in the present case. Moreover, the witnesses produced by the defence, on the other hand 4 stated that the witnesses when reached the place of occurrence none of the witnesses disclosed any names to them. In my opinion, their evidence is trustworthy and reasonable suspicion is raised about the participation of the present appellants in the occurrence. In the background of land litigation between the parties the possibility of false implication also can not be ruled out. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23.12.1996 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 243 of 1986 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 15th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-