IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.939 of 2007 RAMDHARI SINGH SON OF LATE INDRADEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANDAON P.S. BUXAR(M), BUXAR. …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRIMAN NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF HRIDAY NARAYAN SINGH 3. BIJENDRA DUBEY SON OF VINDHYANCHAL DUBEY 4. HRIDYA NARAYAN SINGH SON OF RAMAYAN SINGH 5. GUDRI SINGH SON OF BHUNESHWAR SINGH 6. SHAILENDRA SINGH SON OF SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH RAGHU BIRENDRA SINGH SON OF HRIDAYA NARAYAN SINGH 7. RAGHU BIRENDRA SINGH SON OF HRIDYA NARAYAN SINGH. 8. RAMDEO KOERI SON OF BIRNA KOERI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NADAON, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR. 9. BABULAL KOERI, SON OF SHEOJEE KOERI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NADAON, P.S. BUXAR(M), DISTRICT BUXAR. …OPPOSITE PARTI For the petitioner: Mr.B.J.Ojha For the State : Mr. J. Upadhyay,APP For O.P. : Mr.Binod Kumar Singh & : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, ----------- 05. 05.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Maker of the FIR (P.W.2) is the petitioner in the present application which is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned 1st Asstt. Sessions Judge, Buxar in S.T. No.477/89. An FIR was lodged on 03.04.1987 at 2.30. P.M. in relation to an occurrence that had taken place on the same day at 7.00 A.M. in the morning. According to the prosecution case, while the informant was returning home from the house of a doctor, the accused persons surrounded him and assaulted indiscriminately with various - 2 - weapons causing several injuries on the person of the informant (P.W.2). He was carried to the hospital and from there to Banaras for specialized treatment. At the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 5 are the formal witnesses. P.W.2 is the informant. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the doctor and Investigating Officer of the case respectively. Learned trial court, on a consideration of materials on record, has found that witnesses who were cited in the charge-sheet were not produced to support the case of the informant(P.W.2) without sufficient reasons. This makes the case doubtful. It has further been found that FIR(Ext.5) was recorded on 03.04.1987, but the same was kept hibernated at the police station for four days. Records indicated that the FIR was sent to and received in court on 08.04.1987. It has further been found by learned trial court that discharge records relating to the petitioner issued by the Institute of Medical Science and S.C. Hospital, B.H.U. were not brought on record and proved by the prosecution. Looking to those documents, it has been found that they were adverse to the case of the informant. Learned trial court has, thus, drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application, has submitted that the reasonings assigned by trial court are perfunctory and/or tenuous. Learned counsel representing the opposite parties, on the other hand, supports the judgment. It is contended that reasonings assigned by learned trial court are based on materials on record, they cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. If on the basis of - 3 - materials on record two views can reasonably be drawn and the trial court has taken a view, then the same cannot be said to be perverse. I have considered the submissions and perused the materials on record. It appears to me that learned trial court on appraisal of materials on record, has taken a view against the prosecution which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )