IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR …. Appellant Versus 1. Umesh Tanti, son of late Baleshwar Tanti 2. Manju Devi, wife of Suresh Tanti Both residents of village-Saidpur, P.S. Matihani, District-Begusarai …. Respondents ----------- 6/- 03.03.2011 Limitation in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present Government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 11.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 2000 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents under Section 306, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation, the respondent-accused persons had killed Laxmi Devi, the daughter of Domi Tanti, informant. The informant was examined by the court below as P.W. 4. Two other persons namely, Bauyelal Das (P.W. 5) and Arjun Singh (P.W.6) along with the third person Ramjee Sao are said to have accompanied the informant who went to the matrimonial house of the respondent-accused persons for gathering the basic information about the incident when the father had learnt that his daughter had been murdered by the accused persons. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 has been discussed by the court below and it appears that the incident had 2 taken place because P.W. 4, informant had not given a jersey cow as was demanded by the accused persons. As against the above three witnesses namely P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 came forward to show that the relationship between the accused persons and the deceased was very cordial and they have never heard about any ill treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons and in fact the deceased died due to diarrohea in the clinic of Dr. Indramani Ranjan where she was shifted after falling ill. The learned trial Judge has noted in Paragraph 11 at page-3 and in Paragraph 18 at page-5 that P.Ws. 4 and 3 admitted that they never made any statement before the police. If this was like that then their evidence was completely inadmissible. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, he was also not a witness to the occurrence and the circumstances which could be placed before the trial Judge by the prosecution were not as compelling and complete as could render the accused persons guilty of committing the offence. After hearing learned counsel for the State and having gone through the judgment, I find that there was no perversity in passing the judgment of acquittal. In that view of the matter this appeal against acquittal appears of no merit and the same is dismissed. Ashwini/- (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)