IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48316 of 2008 LILO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 5.12.2008 Heard Sri Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. On account of bearing jealousy with the informant as he is appearing to be an upstart, the petitioner is said to have picked up his grand son and by taking him to Jungle is alleged to have hacked him to death. Thereafter, the petitioner came to the informant and stated to him as to what he had done. The informant brought the dead body. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted that the court should peruse the case diary as it could be a case of suspicion. The learned counsel further contended whether the extra judicial confession was made by the petitioner or not it has to be examined. As things stand there does not appear any element of enmity between the petitioner and the informant and, as such, there could be no such reason to say that it could be a case of false implication. As regards the veracity of - 2 - the confession made by the petitioner to the informant, this could be a question to be decided after recording evidence by the trial Judge and this Court could not take that responsibility by itself, considering which, the petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )