IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1400 of 2010 DINANATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ----------- 02. 04.01.2011 The informant of Harsidhi P. S. Case No. 186 of 2006 is the appellant in this appeal. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Motihari, East Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 624 of 2007, whereby the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been acquitted of charges, framed under section 307/34, 379/34, 427/34, 504/34, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground, on which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant, is that the Trial Court has committed an error in considering the evidence brought on behalf of the prosecution to prove charges against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the case was instituted by the informant, Dinanath Singh, P.W. 4 on 26.10.2006. The occurrence has taken place in his village. The FIR was instituted by him at Motihari Police 2 Station, after traveling 15 kilometers and not at Harsidhi Police Station, which is the nearest Police Station from the place of occurrence. In the FIR, it is alleged that the informant has purchased a land 12 years ago from his villager, Chandeshwar Singh and he was making construction of his house over this land. On the date of occurrence the accused persons came and damaged the centering done for casting the roof and also took away articles, collected for casting the roof. When the informant trying to restrain them, Sunil Kumar came with rod and assaulted on his head and others assaulted with fists and slaps. He had bleeding injury on his head. He became unconscious. This was seen by his nephew, Rajendra Singh (P.W. 3), Bhola Singh (P.W. 2) and son-in-law, Dilip Kumar (P.W.1). P.W. 1 is the son- in-law of the informant, Dinanath Singh. He has stated that Sunil Kumar has assaulted his father- in-law, but when he reached at the place of occurrence, already assault has been made and other persons assembled there, were trying to lift his father-in-law. P.W. 2, Bhola Singh has stated that Sunil Kumar assaulted Dinanath Singh with 3 rod and Parmanand Singh and Motilal Singh assaulted with fists and slaps. They also took away some iron rods and cements from the place of occurrence. This witness has admitted that he is the nephew of the informant. The evidence of P.W. 3, Rajendra Singh also indicates that he reached at the place of occurrence after the assault on the person of the informant. The evidence of P.W. 1, Dilip Kumar also indicates that Rajendra Singh and Bhola Singh had reached at the place of occurrence, ten minutes later than his arrival. He himself has admitted that he arrived after the occurrence. Considering it, there is an admission that none of the three witnesses examined by prosecution has actually witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 3 has admitted that he had never made any statement before the Police during investigation. It was the first time that he has come and deposed in Court. The Trial Court has considered these lacunae in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also that despite admission by these witnesses that several persons had assembled there, no other persons than the family members had come to depose in support of the prosecution. 4 The Doctor, who had examined the informant, has been examined as P.W. 6. He found four simple injuries on the person of the informant and in his opinion, such injuries could have been caused by fall. The Trial Court has considered all these facts and also that prior to institution of case by the informant, the accused persons had already instituted Harsidhi P. S. Case No. 194 of 2006. P.W. 3 has admitted that the accused persons were admitted in Hospital for their treatment of injuries and it has also been noticed by the Trial Court that in Harsidhi P. S. Case No. 194 of 2006, instituted by the accused persons, the independent witnesses came forward to depose, but so far the case, instituted by this informant-appellant is concerned, except his son-in-law and nephew, no other persons came to depose in the case. These were the reasons, considering which the Trial Court came to this conclusion that the case of the prosecution seems to be doubtful and fabricated one and also that the prosecution witnesses have not been able to prove the charges, framed against the accused persons. 5 We do find that finding, which has been recorded by the Trial Court suffers from any infirmity, rather each and every witness’s evidence has been discussed in detail and thereafter the finding has been recorded, which is in accordance with law. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)