IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA GOVERNMENT APPEAL No.50 of 2008 (DB) THE STATE OF BIHAR------------------APPELLANT. Versus 1. UMESH KUMAR @ CHABLIA , SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SAO @ MUNSHI JEE 2. BABLOO SAO, SON OF BANSHI SAO BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GOLAPAR(BARBIGHA), P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA----------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 02. 09.01.2009. Heard. This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.9.2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. VIII, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 74/2007/71/2008 whereby and whereunder the two respondents who had faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted on the basis of the evidence and materials produced before the Court. The learned trail court did not find the charges proved against the respondents beyond shadow of doubt. As per the prosecution story the dead bodies of two persons were recovered from a well. The informant stated that on being called by Bablu, one of the deceased Mukesh had gone out but he did not come back and on the next day the father of Mukesh was informed that dead body of his son was lying in well. The informant went there and found the dead body of his son. Two dead bodies were recovered by the informant with the help of the police. After five days of the recovery of the dead - 2 - bodies, First Information Report was instituted but no body was named as accused in the FIR. In course of the trial, P.Ws. 1 2 and 3 were produced by prosecution as eye witnesses. P.W. 1 stated that his son had gone away and in course of search of his son he had seen some persons dropping two bodies in the well and out of those persons he had identified the two respondents. He also stated that his son had come back on the next day. This witness states that although, he saw the two respondents in the crowd dropping the dead bodies, nothing was disclosed at the time when FIR was lodged after five days of the occurrence. P.Ws. 2 and 3 stated before the trial court that when they were returning after cinema show they saw the two respondents and others assaulting the two deceased and they had dropped the dead bodies in the well but these two witnesses also stated that they did not disclose this occurrence to any body for ten days and it was after ten days that they disclose about the occurrence to the informant. These two persons were the co-villagers and nothing was disclosed by them even at the time of the lodging of the FIR. When the matter was being widely discussed in the village they kept mum in the matter for ten days and then said about the occurrence to others. On this ground the trial court did - 3 - not feel safe to place reliance on the testimony of these witnesses who were produced by the prosecution in support of the charges. We also find that in this case prosecution did not examine the doctor and the I.O. of the case to find out the important objective evidence, which was necessary for proving the charges. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel inclined to make any interference with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and accordingly, this Government Appeal is dismissed. Rajesh/ (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V.N.Sinha, J)