Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 288 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 26.09.1997 passed by Sri Vijay Prasad Poddar, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 629 of 1994. ************ 1. Feeroz Khan, S/o Allauddin Khan. 2. Mahfooz, S/o Jubair Khan. 3. Imam alias Iyaj, S/o Salim Mian. 4. Munna, S/o Md. Hussain. 5. Sikandar, S/o Jubair Khan. All resident of Mohalla-Sammanpura, P.S.- Shashtrinagar, District-Patna. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. R.P. Singh-II, Adv. For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 IPC whereas the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 have been sentenced to RI for three years and appellant No. 5 has been sentenced to four years RI along with his conviction under Section 27 Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to a period of one year by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.Tr. No. 629 of 1994 by a judgment dated 26.09.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant P.W. 4, Mohammuddin is that on 22.05.1992 when he returned from his duty the accused persons allegedly abused him. When he protested the act of the accused persons the uncle of the informant intervened at which appellant Sikandar is said to have 2 fired at him which hit him on the shoulder. The accused persons who have exploded bombs fled away from the place of occurrence. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, Md. Hussain stated that on 21.05.1992 when he was at his darwaza along with his father and narrated as to how the accused persons had assaulted his brother Alisher. He stated the accused persons variously abused Mohammuddin, at which when Mohmuddin protested appellant Sikander is said to have fired at him which hit him on his shoulder. P.W. 2 Md. Munir stated that on 25.01.1992 in the evening when he was sitting at the door of his grandson Mohammuddin he saw his son Alisher having been assaulted. When Mohammuddin went to save him he was also assaulted and thereafter fired at by the appellant, Sikandar on account of which he sustained a fire arm injury and fell down. P.W. 3, Kamruddin is the mother of the informant who stated that she came out of her house when a hulla was raised and saw the accused persons armed and her son was injured. She stated that her son was removed to PMCH. Evidently she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5, Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha stated that on 21.05.1992 at about 10 P.M. he examined informant Mohammuddin and found one lacerated would with 3 charring all round over back and left shoulder and abrasion over bridge of nose. He thus corroborated the prosecution case. P.W. 6, Braj Kishore Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case stated that he had visited but did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. 4. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that all of them have fully corroborated each other on particular materials and the prosecution case further finds support from the Doctor’s evidence as also the evidence of the Investigating Officer. No doubt not a single independent witness has been examined but that is not enough to discard the prosecution case. However, even on consideration of the prosecution case, in my opinion, in the facts of the case it does not seem as though the accused persons had the intention to commit murder of any one much less the informant. 5. In view of such, the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 307/34 IPC. The appellants instead convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC but sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. The conviction of the Appellant No. 5 under Section 27 Arms Act is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him during trial. In 4 addition the appellants (if alive) are directed to pay the informant/his family a sum of Rs. 500/- each within four months from the notice of the Trial Court and in case they fail to do so RI for three months. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 18th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-