1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.979 of 2010 SURESH PRASAD SINGH, aged about 50 years, sonof Sri Rama Nand Singh, resident of Village Tara Bishunpur, P.S.Sakra, P.o.Bharwari, via Silout,District Muzaffarpur … … Appellant Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Kewal Singh son of late Jamuna Singh 3. Ram Updesh Singh son of late Jamuna Singh 4. Saroj Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh son of Ram Umed Singh 5. Sanjiv Kumar son of Ram Kewal Singh 6. Ram Sewak Singh son of late Jamuna Singh 7. Tuntun Kumar @ Mantun Kumar son of Ram Sewak Singh 8. Rajiv Kumar son of Ram Kewal Singh All resident of village Tara Bishunpur, P. S. Sakra, District Muzaffarpur … … Respondents For the appellant: Shri Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. For the State: Shri D. K.Sinha, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 23.8.2010 This appeal has been preferred by the informant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20th July,2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, all the accused– respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution story, the informant tried to intervene in between Ram Kewal Singh and Sanjay Kumar Singh when they were disputing over measurement of a land 2 upon which Ram Kewal Singh became furious. The co-villagers separated them and thereafter the informant came to his village home and proceeded on his jeep bearing No. BRO64-2995 for Muzaffarpur. All the eight accused persons surrounded the jeep while he had proceeded about 250 yards. The accused persons were armed with farsa, revolver, danda and lathis, they abused the informant and wanted to assault him but he was rescued by the co-villagers. Again, the informant proceeded on the jeep and when he traveled about 300 yards he was surrounded by all the eight accused persons who came before the jeep covering their faces with gamchhi and started firing and brick batting as a result of which the wind-glass of the jeep was broken. Accused Ram Kewal Singh tried to assault the informant with farsa but it struck the wind-glass of the jeep and thereafter he assaulted the informant with it as a result of which the informant became injured. The other accused damaged the jeep with lathi and danda. The informant tried to flee away with the jeep but the accused persons fired on the jeep. In the meanwhile, 3 the villagers assembled then the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The prosecution case was investigated, charge sheet submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The witnesses, specially P.W. 2, Umesh Kumar Singh who was also one of the injureds, have admitted in their depositions that one Shiv Narain singh who was also accompanying the informant on the jeep also sustained abrasion due to scattered glass of the jeep. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons at the place of occurrence, fired indiscriminately, brick-batted and assaulted the informant with farsa, lathi, and danda, but it is surprising that the injury which is said to have been received by the informant and others is not corresponding to the allegation made by the witnesses. The medical report indicates that minor injury, like scratches and abrasions of 1/8” were found on their person. No serious injury was caused to any one. The Investigating Officer who 4 investigated the case also did not find any damage caused to the jeep which according to the prosecution witnesses was badly damaged by the accused persons. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by the evidence of the prosecution witness and that is the reason that the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the trial court. On consideration of the judgment of acquittal and the evidence of the witnesses discussed in detail therein as also the findings recorded by the trial court, We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Kanth