IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1377 of 2010 RATAN KISHOR MANDAL, SON OF SRI RAGHUBANSH MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DHARMPATTI, POLICE STATION RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT – SUPAUL (INFORMANT) ………. APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAJENDRA MANDAL, SON OF YUGESHWAR MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DHARMPATTI (MANDAL TOL), POLICE STATION – RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT – SUPAUL. …………. RESPONDENTS.. ----------- 02/ 16.12.2010 This appeal against the acquittal of solitary accused Rajendra Mandal (Respondent No. 2) has been filed by the informant, who himself is injured. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1983/ Trial No. 37 of 2009, whereby sole accused has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 307, 379 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of fard beyan of appellant Ratan Kishore Mandal recorded by Officer-in-charge of Raghopur Police Station, Raghopur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2002 was instituted on 7.10.1982 under Sections 307, 379 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In the FIR the allegation against Rajendra Mandal was that the informant and accused both were going to the place of Bhagwat Mandal for giving him Rs.2500/-. When they reached near Gamharia Nahar 2 Rajendra Mandal asked the informant for taking bath but he refused. The accused thereafter started assaulting him with Chhura of his neck and other parts causing injury. He also took Rs.2500/- from his pocket and fled away. After investigation and submission of charge sheet the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the year, 1983 vide Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1983. For complete 27 years the Sessions trial continued and during this period the prosecution could not examine all witnesses including the doctor, who had examined the injured, and the I.O., who had investigated the case. Only three witnesses could be examined. One of them is Bhagwat Mandal, maternal uncle of injured/informant, another is Fulia Devi, mother of the informant and the 3rd witness is informant himself. So far P.W. 1 Bhagwat Mandal and P.W. 2 Fulia Devi are concerned, they are not the eye witness. They were examined as hearsay witness. They have admitted that they have not seen any part of the occurrence. The evidence of informant (P.W. 3) is nothing, but exaggeration of the facts of the case. He has deposed that occurrence took place at 9.00 a.m. Near the place of occurrence there is school and thousands of persons were present, but not a single 3 independent witness came forward to support the case of the prosecution. This witness has further stated that the accused repeatedly assaulted him twenty times with a knife, whose length was 7 inches. Every time whenever the blow was fully pierced in his body. Despite such injury being received by him he could travel to 10 miles from the place of Bhagwat Mandal (P.W. 1) to inform him regarding the occurrence. This part of the evidence of P.W. 3 cannot be relied upon by any prudent person. There is no evidence on record to show that any such injury was caused to the informant, as during 27 years long period of trial even the injury report could not be produced by the prosecution. We don’t find that the Presiding Officer of the trial court had any option then to pass a judgment of acquittal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we don’t find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)