IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.2 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR … Appellant Versus 1. BISHESHWAR SADAI 2. Ram Kishore Yadav 3. Badri Sadai 4. Ramprit Sadai 5. Jaidev Yadav 6. Ram Prabodh Yadav 7. Parikshan Yadav @ Ram Parikshan Yadav 8. Hari Nonia 9. Ram Prit Yadav 10. Ram Binod Yadav … … Respondents ----------- 3. 13.1.2010 Heard Shri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of the present Government Appeal which questions the propriety of the order of acquittal recorded by the Fast Track Court-III, Madhubani, by its judgment dated 29.5.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1998/62 of 2008. At the very out set, we want to mention that none of the accused who were put on trial was named in the F.I.R. and a categorical statement was made in the fardbeyan that the accused persons had concealed their faces. Still, the informant in her further statement named three accused persons as having been identified by her. The remaining eight accused persons were not named by her. 2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that some witnesses named some of the accused persons while others named the other accused and that there is contradiction as regards their identities. We are concerned with the most important aspect of the matter that the accused persons had admittedly attempted to conceal their identities and at the time of recording of the fardbeyan none was named indicting that the informant had picked up the identity of any of them. The other aspect on identity of the accused is that the informant claimed that she identified the accused persons in the light of torch but there is no material on record that any such article was produced before the police or the Investigating Officer. Some of the respondents were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of not having been sent up by the police. Considering the above frailties which afflicts the prosecution case, we hold that the learned trial Judge was perfectly correct in acquitting the 3 respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. This appeal appears meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)