Criminal Appeal No.343 OF 1994 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.114 of 1990] 1. SITA RAM SAH SON OF LATE RIT LAL SAH 2. KISHORI SAH SON OF LATE RIT LAL SAH, APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MANIKANTI, P.S. SIGHAWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 3. RAM BABU SAH SON OF LATE BUDHAN SAH 4 LAL SAH SON OF SITAL SAH, APPELLANTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SIGHAWARA, P.S. SIGHAWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh No.1, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.307/34 and 452 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and three years respectively, whereas the appellant no.2 has further been convicted u/s.354 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.114 of 1990 by a judgment dated 30.9.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.8.1989 while the informant Ram Chandra Sah was at his house, the appellants came there and variously assaulted him, his wife and daughter, on account of which they sustained injuries. 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.2 and P.W.3 even though named in the First - 2 - Information Report were declared hostile or tendered respectively, whereas P.w.4, who is the daughter of the informant P.W.5, the wife of the informant and P.W.6 (informant) are the eye witnesses. P.W.1 is also an additional eye witness. P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the injured. The prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that the appellants no.1 and 2 are the full brothers of the informant, whereas the appellant no.3 is the nephew of the informant and there was some litigation in respect of the property going on between them. He also supported the fact that both the parties were altercating in which he had intervened and stopped the matter. This fact has not been conceded by the interested eye witnesses. The partisan evidence of interested eye witnesses which materially contradict P.W.1 on the manner of occurrence gives the court an impression that in fact the prosecution has not brought a true version of the occurrence before the court. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 30.9.1994 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.114 of 1990 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 5th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )