IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.22 of 2009 GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR … … Appellant Versus 1. MADAN KUMAR RAHI 2. Bhola Lal Gupta @ Bholajee 3. Krishna Kumar @ Krishnajee 4. Vikash Kumar @ Vickky 5. Gautam Kumar @ Raju 6. Amar Kumar @ Munna 7. Vijay Kumar … … Respondents ----------- 2. 10.12.2009 Learned counsel for the State seeks permission to make correction in the memo of appeal for adding the name of appellant no.7, namely, Vijay Kumar. It is permitted to do so. The correction was made in course of the day. I.A. No. 2573 of 2009 is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein a prayer has been made for condoning the delay of eight months in filing the present Government appeal. Before we could consider the matter for condoning the delay, we have incidentally gone into the judgment of the trial court which shows that as many as nine accused persons were put on trial for the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 2 and out of them two, namely, Bablu Kumar and Sunil Kumar were convicted and seven others were acquitted against whom the present appeal has been filed. The prosecution case was that the two convict accused, namely, Bablu Kumar and Sunil Kumar had come to the deceased’s house, called him and then took him away. The deceased’s wife( P.W. 5) forbade the deceased from going with the two accused in view of the threats they had given earlier to him but the deceased went with them. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries was found on road. In course of trial P.W. 5, the wife of the deceased and P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased stated that the deceased had been called and taken away by the two convicted accused, namely, Bablu Kumar and Sunil Kumar They had also stated that prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., 23.3.2003 which was on 19.3.2003, on the eve of Holi festival all the opposite parties had come to the house of the deceased for searching him but the deceased was not present and that at that 3 time they had threatened and had asked for sending the deceased to Madan Kumar Rahi, opposite party no. 1. P.W.5 also stated that she learnt from one Arun Kumar that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the house of opposite party Madan Kumar Rahi who along with his sons was making preparation for disappearance of the dead body. But, said Arun Kumar was not examined by the prosecution who said that he had seen the dead body in the house of opposite party Madaan Kumar Rahi. In view of the evidence, the learned trial court found complicity of accused Bablu Kumar and Sunil Kumar only and convicted them and the rest accused, namely, opposite parties were acquitted on being given benefit of doubt. So far the merit of the judgment is concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere for granting leave to appeal. Now, on considering the I.A. No. 2573 of 2009 aforesaid, We find that there is inordinate delay which is not reasonably explained. Therefore, we do not find it 4 proper to condone the delay. The I.A. is dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of I.A. No. 2573 of 2009, this appeal has to be treated as time barred and also considering our inability in according leave to appeal, in view of our discussion on merits of the trial court’s judgment, this appeal will stand dismissed. Kanth ( C.M.Prasad, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)