IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1156 of 2010 BALESHWAR RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate ***** 02. 06.10.2010 Heard. A dead body of an unknown person was found lying in the field, Chowkidar 11/5, Badho Paswan of Lakhisarai Police Station was informed about it, when he returned to his village Babhangama after performing his duties at the Police Station at 05.00 p.m. on 30th of December, 1999. The people of his village gave him the above information that the dead body was of a man aged about 20-22 years. It was lying in the wheat field by its belly and, accordingly, the Chowkidar-informant, went to above noted field along with Amrica Paswan on 31.12.1999 at 07.00 a.m. and found that the dead body was lying in a wheat field and the cloths, which could be of the deceased were all torned off and had been put into a bundle in a Khesari field. The plastic sleepers of the deceased were also lying there and the blood mark on account of bleeding from the mouth of the deceased 2 and from his neck were also visible. The informant stated that besides himself, the persons of the neighbouring villages had also gathered there, but nobody identified as to whose dead body it might be. He made all efforts to get identification of the dead body, but failed in that behalf. The informed alleged that it appeared as if the deceased had been murdered by unknown criminals by being inflicted incised injuries. It was recorded in the First Information Report itself that the Officer Incharge of Lakhisarai Police Station, picking out information himself about the dead body, also came there and accordingly the FIR was drawn up against unknown criminals on the statement of above noted Chowkidar 11/5, Badho Paswan. Investigation appears proceeded with on the basis of the above report, which finally ended in sending up respondents no. 2 to 5 for trial. Accordingly, the case being committed, was put to trial by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge- VII, Munger and thereafter the same was transferred to the Fast Track Court No. II, Lakhisarai, which ended up in the judgment of acquittal dated 3 29th of July, 2010. While assailing the judgment of acquittal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who happens to be the father of the deceased, who was examined during the trial as P.W. 4 Baleshwar Rai, submitted that the witnesses who were examined, i.e., P.W.s, 1, 2, 3 and 4, were the family members of the deceased and gave evidence, indicating as if the respondents 2 to 5 had accompanied the deceased to Bhim Bandh, where the deceased was murdered and his dead body was thrown at the place where it was ultimately found. It was contended that the evidence of these witnesses further indicated that the accused persons were giving untenable explanation about the deceased going missing and that was yet another circumstance strongly pointing towards the guilt of respondents 2 to 5. The contention was also that the evidence of Doctor, P.W. 8, Sunil Kumar Singh also indicated that the deceased had been murdered. The learned trial Court scanned the evidence of each and every witness and thereafter recorded his conclusion as to what inference could be drawn on that basis and while so doing went on to reject the circumstances of deceased being taken by the 4 respondents 2 to 5 and further held that the evidence was not sufficient to indicate that the deceased had been taken away on account of being mislead or even forcibly to any place. The learned trial judge further found that there were varying statements of witnesses as to which place the deceased had gone to and which of the respondents accompanied him and that further weakened the proof of the charge. It was, lastly, concluded that there was long delay in coming forward to make statement by the family members of the deceased and during that long time, all the family members including the present appellant, the father of the deceased, had even admitted to have never approached the police or the local authorities like Mukhiya and Sarpanch to complain that his son had gone missing. The learned trial judge as such recorded the order of acquittal. We were taken through different paragraphs of the judgment, especially those which contained the discussions of the evidence of each of the witnesses. While considering the evidence of P.W. 1, Balmiki Rai, who appears to be claiming to have met the deceased, Niranjan Patel near the railway line, the learned trial judge has recorded that the deceased 5 was being accompanied by Adhik Lal Paswan and that none of the respondents were accompanying him. This discussion of evidence appears at page 4 of the judgment in paragraph 7 of it. So far as the evidence of P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Ram was concerned, the learned trial judge has recorded that he being the brother of the deceased, Niranjan Patel has stated in his evidence that the deceased went with Adhik Lal Paswan and Shrawan Paswan and the remaing batch of the present respondents were moving towards the Bhim Bandh separately. Evidence of P.W. 2 further indicated to the trial court that the two groups were quite apart from each other and appeared moving independently of each other. Not only that the learned trial court recorded that there was complete lack of any statement coming from P.W. 2 that the deceased had either been mislead or had been forced to go with any of the accused persons. Ultimately, the learned trial judge was not placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 2, simply for the reasons, firstly, that the evidences of P.W. 2 would not give rise to any inference that the present set of respondents 2 to 5 can be said to be moving with the deceased and he 6 was moving with some other persons and, secondly, that there was complete lack of evidence that he was even persuaded by any of the respondents to go to any place, least to Bhim Bandh. As regards the story of the prosecution that the deceased was going to Bhim Bandh with the respondents 2 to 5 for picnic or anything, we have serious doubt about the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, the father of the deceased that the deceased was taken to Bhim Bandh for participating in picnic as the brother of the deceased Ramnath Kumar (P.W. 3) has stated that the deceased himself told him that he was going to Jhakhar. Jhakar and Bhim Bandh was two different places that can be apparent from the evidence of P.W. 2. From the above statements, it could be very difficult to any court to record a finding that the prosecution was coming out with true and correct version of the evidence. The most important aspect of the matter, which was taken into account by the learned trial judge was the delayed statements of the present appellant and his sons. In spite of the fact that the informant and his family members came to know about the finding of the dead body at the Lakhisarai 7 Police Station, no one was coming out with any story which was stated during trial. Not even a simple information was given to the Police Station that the deceased had gone missing. No one had ever whispered that it were the respondents 2 to 5 or anyone who could have caused the disappearance of the deceased. The father of the deceased, i.e., the present appellant, his full brother, P.W. 2, have stated that they did not make any effort of even informing the police or even the local level authorities, like, the Mukhiya and Sarpanch, that anything had happened to one of their family members and something was required to be done. These are some of the circumstances which appeared weighing with the learned trial judge in acquitting the respondents. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment with all attention, we are of the view that the appeal appears of no merit. As such, the same is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)