IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2010 BIRENDRA RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 23.11.2010 Case was under sections 307, 149 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, in which charges under that particular sections were framed on 20th of June, 2006. The allegation is that the respondents came and started throwing away the Bhushaul (a structure meant to store fodder) outside the land of the petitioner and also started dismantling the structure on account of the dispute for a particular piece of land. The attempt being resisted, the respondent, Ram Sagar Ram is said to have given Farsa blow on the head of the wife of the present appellant, namely, Kalawati Devi, who has been examined as P.W. 9. The informant and his sons be alleged to have assaulted by other accused persons. There is specific allegation that the son of the informant, namely, Birendra Ram, P.W. 10, was assaulted with Lathi by one of the accused persons. On the basis of the statement of the appellant, the FIR of Baniapur P. S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered and the investigation was taken 2 up. Neither the Investigating Officer nor the Doctor was examined in the Court below, as such we do not know as to what were the findings of either of the two official witnesses. Suffice it to mention that the Lower Court judgment points out, and that could be the only reasonable inference to draw, that the charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents, which culminated into the order of commitment of the case to the court of sessions and ultimately, the trial vide Sessions Trial No. 688 of 2005 was held. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra by judgment delivered on 14th of June, 2010, acquitted the nine respondents of the solitary charge as noted at the very outset. The chief grievance of the appellant, which has been placed before us by his learned counsel, was that the Court having ordered for the issuance of summons against the official witnesses, especially the Doctor, did not wait for further actions to be taken, so as to getting him produced before him and recording his evidence. The next grievance was that the Court has noted down that P.W. 5, Rajendra Sah was examined as an eye witness, but the Court 3 below has not discussed his evidence at any place in its judgment and as such it suffers with serious infirmity and perversity. The Learned counsel has enclosed a copy of deposition of the said witness, P.W. 5. This may be pointed out that most of the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution charge as appears from the very discussion on various facts on page 9 of the hand written judgment. So far as the evidence of P.W. 5 is concerned, he, besides P.W. 11, Gautam Ram, the informant, appears supporting the prosecution charges. The Court below has read in extenso the evidence of P.W. 11, Gautam Ram and had gone on to discard his evidence on various grounds. The one ground, which appears taken note of by the Trial Court is by virtue of the statement contained in paragraph 14 of P.W. 11, which indicated that the informant had made serious improvement upon his earlier version, which was not contained in Fardbeyan. We were informed during the course of hearing that all public witnesses were examined only within two years of the incident and the 4 examinations of witnesses were over by 2008. In such a short spell of time, if the informant was going on to improve his case to give a serious look to it, then we would be very slow to act upon the evidence of such a witness. It is true that the Court below has missed discussing the evidence of P.W. 5, but that deposition sheet was also considered by us so as to satisfy ourselves about its non-consideration and ultimate effect on the order of acquittal. We may note that the evidence of the witness was not going to improve the situation any further. Most of the witnesses, who have been discussed threadbare in the judgment, like, Bhuwneshwar Singh and others appeared not being the eye-witness. The court has given good reasons for discarding them. The Investigating Officer was not examined. Doctor did not appear to support that there was any injury, which could be dangerous to life, so as to bringing the case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. There is inherent dispute between the parties for taking possessions of the land, land being claimed by each of them on account of purchase. If this could be the situation and this could be the manner of prosecution and production of evidence, we feel 5 that the Court below did not have any other option than to record the order of acquittal. The order suffers from no perversity. The view, which was taken by the Court below, is correct. The appeal is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)