IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus ASHOK SINGH ----------- 8 23-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the State, the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been preferred to seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On going through the impugned judgment it is noticed that P.W.1 has given a different version of the occurrence and according to him the informant along with other family members arrived at the place of occurrence much later; Dilesh, an injured who is brother of the deceased was taken on a motor-cycle to hospital for treatment by one Saket and one Binod. Five charge sheet witnesses were subsequently examined as court witnesses and those court witnesses who have been found to be independent have given a different place of the occurrence. Even the interested court witnesses have accepted the presence of one Saket on the motor-cycle on which the deceased was travelling at the time of the alleged occurrence . A doctor, P.W.8 has deposed that injured Dilesh Singh, brother of the deceased had come to Navi Nagar hospital for treatment and his statement was recorded by the police on 1-10-2004 at 4.30 P.M.. The trial court has noticed that the version of the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. was recorded on that date at 17.30 P.M. and the statement of the injured - 2 - Naresh which was given at 4.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence as per the doctor has been suppressed. Thus, on considering all the materials the trial court has doubted the presence of informant at the time of occurrence and has come to the conclusion that independent witnesses have given different version of the occurrence and the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. In the facts of the case it is not possible to hold that the trial court has committed any illegality or perversity which may warrant interference with acquittal of respondents. In that vie w of the matter the prayer to grant leave to appeal is rejected. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Madhavendra Saran, J)