1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1021 of 2010 BALRAM YADAV @ GHINAI YADAV son of late Resham Lal Yadav, resident of Village Bakhari Phulwari, P.S. Kurshakanta,District Araria … … Appellant Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bindi Yadav, son of late Agam Lal Yadav 3. Madan Yadav, son of Bindi Yadav 4. Pawan Yadav, son of Bindi Yadav All residents of village Bakhari Phulwari, P.S.Kurshakanta,DistrictAraria … … Respondents. For the appellant: Shri Bikramdeo Singh,Advocate For the State: Shri D. K. Sinha,A.P.P. ----------- 2. 31.8.2010 Balram Yadav alias Ghinai Yadav is the appellant who has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being an injured person. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Araria, in Sessions Trial No.230 of 1994, Tr. No.32 of 2010, whereby respondents 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the C. T. Act. The informant Mostt. Tetari Devi had given her fardbeyan before the local Police 2 on 20.9.1993 at 9.45 A.M. stating that at about 7 A.M. the respondents 2 to 4, namely, Bindi Yadav, Madan Yadav and Pawan Yadav were ploughing her field and at that time her son, namely, Balram Yadav alias Ghinai Yadav (appellant) raised objection against ploughing the field and opened the tie of the plough. Thereafter, the accused persons came there armed with lathi, farsa, and garhail. Accused Madan Yadav gave a farsa blow on the head of the appellant, son of the informant and he fell down sustaining injury. Accused Bindi Yadav gave garhail blow on the head of the appellant and accused Pawan Yadav gave a lathi blow on the body of the son of the informant. Hearing the alarm raised by the informant, P.W. 1 Hukum Lal Yadav came at the scene of the occurrence and he was also assaulted by the accused persons with lathi. When the informant and her daughter Samiya Devi came for rescue of the appellant, they were also assaulted by accused Pawan Yadav by lathi. Parshuram Yadav, Ssiyaram Yadav and Tarachand Yadav, the co-villagers also came at the place of occurrence hearing the alarm being raised by the informant and witnessed 3 the occurrence. The accused persons, thereafter, left the place of occurrence taking away their plough. The informant brought her son to the hospital where he was treated. The case was investigated into by the police and charge sheet was submitted against the respondents 2 to 4. Thereafter, cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Trial proceeded and ended in acquittal of the accused, as indicated above. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in course of trial who were P.W. 1 Hukum Lal Yadav, P.W. 2 Kari Devi, P.W. 3 Tarachand Yadav, P.W. 4 Samiya Devi, P.W.5 Parshuram Yadav and P.W. 6 the appellant but none of these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 4 were declared hostile. P.W. 1 Hukum Lal Yada and P.W. 2 Kari Devi, who were said to be the first persons to reach the place of occurrence hearing the alarm and to have received injuries at the hands of the accused, have totally denied the prosecution case, rather, they have stated that they did not know 4 anything about the occurrence. P.W.4 who is the daughter of the informant also did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, P.W.3 Tarachand Yadav also completely denied the prosecution story stating that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. The most surprising aspect is that even Balram Yadav alias Ghinai Yadav P.W. 6, who was also an injured, has not supported the case of the prosecution so far the manner of occurrence and the role played by the respondents- accused in the commission of the offence are concerned. The Doctor who examined the P.W. 6 and other injured was not examined. The Investigating Officer was also not examined. In this background and the material which was brought before the trial court, the trial Judge has recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused persons. Even, there was no evidence on record in support of the prosecution story proving the charges framed against the accused persons. As such, there was no other option left to the trial court than to pass the judgment of acquittal. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. 5 This appeal is dismissed. ( Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Kanth