IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.43 of 2008 STATE OF BIHAR…………… Appellant Versus 1. RAM BABU SINGH, son of Sri Ram Sundar Singh 2. Dinesh Singh, son of Sri Ram Sundar Singh 3. Ram Swarath Mahto, son of Sri Lakhan Mahto All residents of village- Mathurapur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur …. Respondents ----------- 04/ 19.1.2009 Heard. This Govt. appeal is against the judgment dated 29.7.2008 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. IV, samastipur under Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2001, whereby the Respondents were tried for the charges under Sections 323, 341, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. and they were acquitted of the charges. The prosecution story is that while the informant, along with his brother-in-law was returning from Mohanpur Chowk, the Respondents, who were variously armed, started abusing him and on his protest, he (informant) as well as his wife, niece and brother were assaulted at the hands of the Respondents. It was alleged that Respondent Dinesh Singh assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head. Dinesh Singh also assaulted with bomb on his (informant’s) head. Ram Babu Singh assaulted with farsa on his (informant’s) head and Ram Swarath Mahto assaulted on his elbow by means of Pachanga ( a weapon used in fishing). During trial, the informant and his family members were examined on the point of occurrence and they stated about 2 the prosecution story as set forth in the F.I.R. The doctor was examined as P.W.7 with respect to the injuries on the informant. Learned trial court came to a finding that the witnesses were interested one, and there was infirmities in their evidence. The informant’s wife, niece and brother were also stated to have been assaulted at the hands of the Respondents, but any injury with respect to them was not brought on record by way of producing any medical certificate or examining any doctor, who treated them. The evidence of P.W.7, the doctor, was very important inasmuch as the doctor did not find any farsa injury on the head of the informant though there was a categorical case of the prosecution that the informant had been assaulted by Ram Babu Singh with farsa on his (informant’s) head. The doctor found two penetrating wounds on informant’s vertex. The doctor also stated that Pachanga is a kind of weapon used in fishing and that it will cause penetrating wound, but he continued further to state that when penetrated and thereafter taken out, the Pachanga will cause a type of injury in which tearing of muscles on the injury will be found. But the doctor did not mention the finding of any tearing of muscles on the penetrating wound. In such view of the matter, the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case. Thus, considering the evidence of the doctor and the other infirmities, learned trial court did not find charges proved beyond the shadow of doubts. Hence, the Respondents were acquitted. 3 On consideration of the materials as above, we fail to find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and this Govt. Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Arjun/ (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V.N. Sinha, J.)