IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.321 of 2011 SHAMBHU RAI SON OF LATE RADHA KISHAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE- SARANGPUR, P.S.- SHAHPUR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR.. APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEVENDRA RAI SON OF LATE BHUNESHWAR RAI 3. BHARAT RAI SON OF LATE BHUNESHWAR RAI 4. YOGENDRA RAI SON OF BALIRAM RAI 5. BALIRAM RAI SON OF LATE PARPAN RAI ALL 2 TO 5 ARE R/O VILLAGE- SARANGPUR, P.S.-SHAHPUR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR………………..RESPONENTS ----------- 2 19/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 18.1.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1998 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 1996 whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that in this case charge was framed on 3.2.2000 and the judgment has been delivered in the year 2011 i.e. after more than a decade still the doctor was not examined. As per the provisions of Section 172 Cr.P.C., the trial court perused the post mortem report and has not found any ante mortem injury on the person of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has also not found any injury upon the person of the deceased while preparing the inquest report. Non-examination of the 2 Doctor and Investigating Officer has undoubtedly prejudiced the case of the prosecution and so the court had no option but to pass the order of acquittal. The trial court has waited for long and has taken all steps to record the statement of the witnesses and despite all steps could not succeed. Even thereafter, all the facts available on the record were discussed in the judgment and passed the order of acquittal. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and it needs no interference. This appeal is ill advised and accordingly, dismissed. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) avin