IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.12 of 2010 NASARUDDIN ANSARI, S/O. Ismail Ansari, r/o. Village- Bazar Bhithi, P.S. Baniapur, District- Saran (Chapra). Versus 1. Hafiz Ansari, S/o. Amir Ansari, 2. Jakir Ansari, S/o. Amir Ansari, Both are r/o. Village-Gopalpur, P.S. Baniapur, District- Saran. 3. The State of Bihar, ----------- 05. 02.04.2010 This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Saran on 24.11.2009 under Sessions Trial No. 420 of 2008 whereby the O.Ps. 1 & 2 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. The informant P.W.6 Nasiruddin Ansari, the brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. on 26.06.2004 stating that his sister Shamshun Bibi was married to Samsuddin Ansari in the year 1989. He alleged that the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 who are brothers were assaulting the deceased with an intention that she may be finished and thereafter the second marriage of Samsuddin may be performed with another lady. The informant also stated that on 22.02.2004 he got information that his sister was being assaulted so he went to her matrimonial house and found that she 2 was beaten there and he pacified the matter and came back. He further alleged that on 23.06.2004 he got information that in the evening of 23rd June, 2004 he got information that his sister had been killed in her matrimonial house. Hence, he informed his father (P.W.5 Ismile Ansari) on 25.06.2004 who came on 26.06.2004 and went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and learnt that she had been killed by the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and others and her dead body had been buried. The F.I.R. being lodged of these allegations, investigation commenced and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted and the O.Ps. 1 & 2 were put on trial. During trial the informant P.W.6 deposed whatever he has stated in F.I.R. he also stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the graveyard and it was found that her eyes were protruded, fracture injury was on her hand and there was injury on head also. The informant’s father P.W.5 deposed that 3 the deceased had 13 dhurs of land in her name and the O.Ps. wanted to get the land transferred in their favour and due to not getting the land transferred they were annoyed and were assaulting the deceased. He also stated that the O.Ps. had said that the deceased would be killed and Samsuddin Ansari, the husband of the deceased (who was also charge sheeted but he absconded and he was not put on trial) would be married to another lady. He further deposed that he, along with his son had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter but the in-laws of the deceased threatened him and they also assaulted him. Besides this there are some other witnesses but none have stated anything about the occurrence. The P.W.7 Kuldeep Ram, S.I. is the I.O., who stated that the dead body was taken out from the graveyard. P.W.8 Dr. Umesh Sharma is the doctor who had conducted post mortem examination who stated that the dead body was swollen, skin peeled off, maggot present on face, eye-ball protruded. He also stated to have found three abrasions, one on temporal region, 4 second on left parietal region and the third on right arm. On dissection he also found fracture of right temporal bone and 4” crack was found. The haemorrhage due to the injuries were stated to be the cause of death. The trial-court considered that in this case there was no witness to say about the occurrence of assault and the causing of the injuries which were found to be the cause of death. Even the informant has not said that the injuries were caused in his presence. The informant stated that on 23.06.2004 he got information that his sister (deceased) had been killed but nobody who gave this information to the informant has been examined in Court to say about the occurrence. No doubt, the medical evidence showed that the injuries found on the deceased were the cause of death. But for holding the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 guilty for the offence the prosecution was required to prove it through evidence that they had caused the injuries. Finding no evidence in this regard the learned trial-court acquitted the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2. In 5 absence of any evidence to indicate the complicity of the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 in the causing of the injuries resulting into the death of the appellant, the learned trial-court was justified in taking its view and acquitting the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2. In such view of the matters, I find no ground for any interference with the view taken by the trial- court. Therefore, finding no merit in this S.L.A. application, the same is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)