Criminal Appeal No.53 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.4.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.168 of 1990] 1. VISHNU YADAV, SON OF SUBHAGWAN YADAV 2. KANAHIYA YADAV, SON OF BILTU YADAV 3. FEKAN YADAV, SON OF KANAHIYA YADAV 4. BUDHI RAM YADAV SON OF BILTU YADAV 5. SRI BHAGWAN YADAV, SON OF JAGNARAIN YADAV, ALL RSIDENTS OF VILLAGE KHARA TAND TOLA, P.S. KRISHNA BRAHM, DISTRICT BUXAR ……………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. R. K. Samrendra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant nos.1, 2 and 5 have been convicted u/ss.147, 324/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for nine months u/s.324 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed u/ss.147, 148 and 149 I.P.C., whereas appellant nos.3 and 4 have been convicted u/ss.148, 324 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for two years and one year respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.168 of 1990 by a judgment dated 28.4.1995. The prosecution case is that on 11.10.1987 when the informant and others went to protest at the earlier actions of appellants Kanahiya Yadav, Budhi Ram Yadav and Fekan Yadav, an assault was resorted to by the accused persons in which five persons were allegedly injured. Initially the case was - 2 - instituted u/s.307 I.P.C. but the appellants were convicted as mentioned above. During trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 are the injured witnesses and P.W.5 is the informant himself. P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined the injured witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. The doctor (P.W.6) examined the injured has stated that all the injuries were simple in nature and injured had been sent for further radiological test but the doctor, who conducted the said test, has not been examined by the prosecution. No independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution but the version of the eye witnesses are completely reliable and trustworthy. In view of such, I find no merit in the appeal. However, the sentence of the appellants is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated, 26th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )