IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.271 of 2008 LALLAN SINGH SON OF SUBEDAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAJIPUR, P.S.- NARHAT, DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM SAGAR SINGH, SON OF NASIB SINGH 3. SAKENDRA SINGH SON OF NASIB SINGH, 4. MANOJ SINGH, SON OF YADUNANDAN SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GAJIPUR, P.S.- NARHAT, DISTRICT- NAWADA. For the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, APP ----------- 3 30.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 409/1994/71/2005 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Nawada. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2008 whereby the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 4 herein) were tried and acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution case, on the date of occurrence (23.2.1994) while informant was moving on a village road, he was fired at from behind causing injury in his back. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown although in the body, a suspicion was raised against the accused persons who are agnates of the informant. Charge-sheet was submitted giving rise to the trial. At the trial, the prosecution appears to have examined 13 witnesses. On an evaluation of their evidence, learned trial 2 court found and held that only the informant (P.W. 11) was a witness to the occurrence. Learned trial court, referring to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, has come to a conclusion that these witnesses claimed that they met the informant while running away from place of occurrence in an injured condition. It was disclosed to them by the informant that he (informant) was fired at from behind by some persons but the names of the accuseds were not disclosed by him. P.W. 7 is the son of the informant. During his deposition, he has stated in clear terms that the names of the accused were being disclosed by him in the court on the basis of the disclosures made to him by his father. This witness has further stated that prior to the occurrence, three of the accused persons had come to his house looking for the informant. Learned trial court has found that the aforesaid statement was not made by this witness before the police in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Animosity between the parties appeared to be admitted. On a conspectus of the entire material emanating from the record, learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the evidence indicating complicity of the accused in the commission of crime was far from being satisfactory. The trial court, on the contrary, has found and held that immediately after the occurrence, the informant had met three prosecution witnesses to whom he disclosed about the incident but neither the names of the accused(s) were disclosed nor a suspicion was raised against them. In the background of 3 these facts, it was found and held that the charges have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and accordingly the judgment and order of acquittal was recorded. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order which may term it to be perfunctory. Reasons are not tenuous. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )