Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.9.1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1986 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura. ****** 1. UPENDRA YADAV 2. RAJENDRA YADAV 3. YOGENDRA YADAV ALL S/O LATE BHAGAT YADAV 4. SATYA NARAIN YADAV S/O AWADH YADAV 5. PALTAN YADAV 6. ANANT YADAV BOTH S/O SATYA NARAIN YADAV ALL R/O VILLAGE-BHAWANIPUR, P.S.- SINGHESHWAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Adv. For the State : Ram Chandra Sahai APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1986 by the judgment dated 12.9.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.8.1982 when the informant and his brother were going to purchase fertilizers they saw the accused persons ploughing the land of Dr. Chandra Madhav Dubey which was on Batai with the informant and amalgamating it along with their own land at which they protested. The appellant no. 1 assaulted him as also his brother on account of which both of them were injured. 3. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 is on the point of occurrence, P.W. 2 and 3 are also on the factum of occurrence, P.W. 4, 5 and 6 are alleged eye-witnesses. P.W. 7 is the doctor who examined the two injured which were all simple in nature. P.W. 6 is the informant himself. 4. The defence on its behalf examined Dr. Chandra Madhav Dubey as D.W. 1 who has been mentioned in the First Information Report and for whose land informant was protesting. He stated in his evidence that in fact he had given the land in question of Batai to appellant no. 1 and 2 thus demolishing entire prosecution case that the appellants were aggressors. This turns the entire prosecution case and leads the court to believe that appellants had assaulted the informant and the injured in right of private defence of property. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1986 by the judgment dated 12.9.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.