Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.94 OF 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.04.1996 and 24.04.1996 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No.96 of 1989 *** 1. BANBARI MAHTON son of Late Mahton, 2. Brahmdeo Mahton son of Banbari Mahton, 3. Hukumdeo Mahton son of Banbari Mahton, 4. Ram Lakhan Mahton son of Ruplal Mahton, 5. Raj Kumar Mahton son of Ram Lakhan Mahton, 6. Raj Kishore Mahton son of Ram Lakhan Mahton, 7. Sitaram Mahton son of Lakshuman Mahton, & 8. Shiva Shankar Mahton son of Sitaram Mahton All resident of village-Nurchak Tola-Koryani, Police Station- Bisfi, District- Madhubani …Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent *** For the appellants : Mr. Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aslam Ansari, APP *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been convicted under sections 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, further appellant nos. 1 and 4 have also been convicted under section 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant no.5 has been convicted under sections 324 and 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under both counts. Further appellant no.3, 7, 8 and 6 have been convicted under section 323 and 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under each count, appellant nos. 2 and 6 have also been convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further appellant no.6 has also been convicted under section 447 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple - 2 - imprisonment for six months by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No.96 of 1989, by judgment dated 23.04.1996. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on 16.06.1987 at 7.30 AM when Bhola Mahato protested on the ploughing of land by the appellant no.4 and 6, an altercation arose between them and then Bhola Mahto is said to have been assaulted by the accused persons. When the informant went to intervene in the matter, he was also assaulted. The genesis of the occurrence is land dispute between the parties. 3. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 18 witnesses, out of whom, P.W.6 has been examined as P.W.15 and P.W.16 has been examined as P.W.18. P.W. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are material witnesses. P.W. 7 and 8 are one of the injured and uncle of the informant. P.W.11 is the informant himself. P.W.6, 9, 16 and 17 are formal witnesses, who have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.10 has been declared hostile, P.W.13, who is the doctor, has examined the injured. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the genesis of the occurrence was land dispute and, in fact, the land belonged to the prosecution party has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is an admitted prosecution case that there was bonafide land dispute between the parties and in absence of it having proved that the land indeed belonged to Bhola Mahto, the benefit of doubt will accrue in favour of the accused persons. 5. In view of such, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants under various counts since the prosecution has failed in its primary duty of proving that the disputed land belonged to them. - 3 - 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellant are acquitted of their respective charges. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-