Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.1 of 1996 with Cr. Revision No.584 of 1995 *** Against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.09.1995 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Trial No.380 of 1988. *** Govt. Appeal No. 1 of 1996: THE STATE OF BIHAR … ….Appellant Versus 1. DIWAKAR JHA son of Late Janardan Jha, 2. Jai Narain Jha son of Late Turant Lal Jha, 3. Shambhu Nath Jha son of Tirth Narain Jha All R/o village-Manipur, P.S.-Tarapur, District- Munger 4. Bhupendra Thakur son of not known R/o village- Chandanpur, P.S. Bal, District- Bhgalpur 5. Satish Jha son of Tirth Narain Jha R/o village- Manikpur, P.S. Tarapur, District-Munger … ….Respondents CR. REV. No.584 of 1995: SRI MAHESHANAND JHA son of Late Basukinath Jha, resident of village- Manikpur, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station-Tarapur, District- Munger … ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Diwakar Jha son of Late Janardhan Jha, 3. Jainarain Jha son of Late Turant Lal Jha, 4. Shambhu Nath Jha son of Tirth Narayan Jha, 5. Satish Jha son of Tirth Narayan Jha, All resident of village and P.O.-Manikpur, Police Station- Tarapur, District- Munger 6. Bhupendra Thakur son of resident of village-Chandrapur Police Station- Bathu, District- Bhagalpur …Opposite Parties *** Govt. Appeal No. 1 of 1996: For the appellant : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, A.P.P. For the respondents : M/s P. K. Das and D. K. Jha, Advocates CR. REV. No.584 of 1995: For the petitioner : Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P. 2 For the respondent no.1: Mr. D. K. Jha, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash , J. The Govt. Appeal as well as Cr. Revision application has been filed against the acquittal of the respondents of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 304 Indian Penal Code 2. On going through the judgment of acquittal, I find that the Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that P.W. 1, 4 and 5 have materially contradicted each other. In fact from the evidence of P.W.4 I find it is clear that he conceded that he had not disclosed the name of any of the respondents before the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.4 also does not inspire confidence so far as the participation of the respondents is concerned since he himself conceded that as soon as he was scolded he left the place of occurrence and, therefore, the Court is left with the evidence of P.W.5, the sole eye witness, who was not named by the other two witnesses. His conduct at the time of occurrence also belies his presence. The enmity between the parties is not disputed and the defence had also brought defence witness to bring this fact to light. The doctor (P.W.2), who held post mortem examination, has merely stated about the presence of bruises on the person of the deceased and opined that death was on account of the bruises sustained by the deceased. However, he has neither given the depth nor the size of the injuries found on the person of the deceased and, therefore, his opinion that the death had occurred on account of such injury appears to be a mere speculation. 3. In view of the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court and the appreciation of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the acquittal of the respondents. 3 4. In view of such, both the Govt. Appeal as well as Cr. Revision application are dismissed. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 20th June, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-