IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1170 of 2008 SACHIDANAND PRASAD, S/o Late Kashi Prasad of Parwalpatti Parsauni, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. …………..Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mukesh Kumar Sah, S/o Raghu Ram Sah 3. Ram Chandra Sah, S/o Dip Narayan Sahu 4. Ram Kumar Sah, S/o Ram Chandra Sahu 5. Shyam Babu Sah, S/o Dip Narayan Sahu 6. Manoj Kumar Mishra, S/o Binod Mishra 7. Lal Babu Sah, S/o Dip Narayan Sahu 8. Ram Babu Sah, S/o Dip Narayan Sahu, 9. Chandrika Sah, S/o Dip Narayan Sahu All of Parwalpatti Parsauni, P.S.-Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur …….Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the State :Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Learned A.P.P. ----------- 2 24-06-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is the informant of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 88 of 1995 and also the father of the deceased namely Rohit Kumar, has filed the present application questioning the sustainability of the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 2, Muzaffarpur in S.T. No. 222 of 1998). As per allegation in the F.I.R., the deceased had gone to school on the relevant date i.e. 22.08.1995. 2 He left the school during mid-way and thereafter he did not return home. As per allegation, the two accused were seen following the deceased. In fact, the following day, the dead body of Rohit Kumar was found. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. At the trial 14 prosecution witnesses were examined. Learned counsel appearing in support of this application admits before this court that the case hinges on circumstantial evidence. He also admits that there is no allegation of kidnapping against the accused persons. Learned trial court critically evaluated the evidence of PW-6(brother of the deceased), PW-7 (mother of the deceased) and PW-8 (informant). The trial court has noted as under at Page -19 of the judgment: “Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must by complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the light of legal position about circumstantial evidence, I have to examine whether the circumstantial evidence in this case, satisfies requirement of law or not.” 3 Referring to the depositions of PWs 6, 7 and 8, it has been found and held that there is/was vital contradictions in their respective depositions so far as the allegation that two of the co-accused namely Manoj Kumar Mishra and Mukesh Kumar Sah were seen following the deceased. The court has also seriously doubted the manner of occurrence. At one place the allegation was made that the deceased was taken away by some of the co-accused. At the trial the evidence has been led to the effect that the victim left the school in mid-way on the ground that he was feeling unwell. Motive alleged against the accused persons has also duly been considered by the learned trial court and it has been found that the same does not hold good so far as the accuseds are concerned. On critical analysis of the materials available on record, the trial court has held as under at page 29: From the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also defence witnesses, I find that the circumstances which is proved by the prosecution by itself, is too feeble to connect the accused persons with the murder of the son of the informant and hence, I further find that three conditions which are necessary to be satisfied before circumstantial evidence, can be made basis for conviction, have not been fulfilled beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the evidence on 4 record, falls sort of proving guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge of murder and screening the dead body of the deceased against the accused persons beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and hence, I find that the accused persons are not guilty for the charges leveled against them and accordingly they are acquitted from the charges and they are also discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.” The submission of the petitioner that the trial judge has failed to examine all aspects of the matter in right perspective, in my view, is not sustainable. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K.Mandal, J.)