IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.7 of 2008 JITENDRA MOHAN SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMJI YADAV 3. SOMAR YADAV 4. ARVIND YADAV ----------- 5 19.03.2009 Heard both sides. The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court (1st Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Gaya) in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2005. The case relates to murder of two persons. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that in order to support the case as spelt out in the complaint, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. So far the complainant(P.W. 5) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he is not an eye witness. The person(s) from whom, he drew information have not been examined in this case and as such the Trial Court has rightly not placed reliance on his testimony. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, this Court finds that adequate reason has been assigned for not placing reliance on his evidence as this witness has appeared in court for the first time after 18 years of occurrence. So far as P.W. 1 Chandradev Prasad Singh is concerned, learned counsel submits that the reason assigned by the learned Trial Court is flimsy and is open to various criticism. 2 Having considered the submissions, the Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file appeal. The application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )