1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.790 of 2007 RAKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI SHYAM LAL MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE-PARMANANDPUR, POLICESTATION, KORHA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR……………………………..…………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MADAN MOHAN MISHRA, S/O LATE INDRA NAND MISHRA. 3. GUDDU @ NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI MADAN MONAN MISHRA. 4. PAPPU @ RAMENDRA KUMAN MISHRA, S/O SHRI MADAN MOHAN MISHRA ALL NOs. 2 TO 4 ARE R/O VILLAGE-PARMANANDPUR, POLICE STATION, KORHA DISTRICT-KATIHAR…………………..…OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner………………….…………..Mr. N. K. Agrawal (Sr. Advocate) Mr. Bhola Prasad (Advocate) For the Opp. Party…………………………… Mr. A. K. Thakur Mr. Amish Kumar (Advocate) For the State…………………..………………Mr. Jharkhandi Upydhya (A.P.P.) ----------- 5 13-07-2010 Heard both the sides. Petitioner (P.W.-6) is the informant of the case. The F.I.R. is Exhibit-1. He assails the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by Learned Fast Track Court, V, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 446 of 2006. As per the F.I.R. (Exhibit-1) on the date of occurrence that is 1.4.2006 he was asked by his Bhabhi (P.W.-5) to locate and call her husband, the victim. The informant proceeded to look for him. It is alleged that near the maize field of one Rajendra Singh, the victim was found fallen on the ground after having received injuries. The Motor cycle of the deceased brother was lying capsized near the place of occurrence. As he reached near the victim/injured it is alleged that he disclosed the names of the accuseds (O.Ps herein) who had assaulted him. While carrying him to the hospital the injured died. Investigation was done wherafter charge sheet was 2 submitted leading to the trial. At the trial ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charges. Accuseds brought on record. Exhibits- A, B, C and D in order to demonstrate that parties were on litigating term from before. They thus claimed false implication owing to previous animosity. Learned Trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence of the informant (P.W.-6) found that in course of his deposition he presented himself as an eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence was, thus, collated with his previous statement made in fard beyan (Exhibit-1). It was found that the evidence of petitioner was not trustworthy specially his claim that he had seen the accused assaulting the victim. The Trial Court also appraised the deposition of the wife (P.W.-5) and the father P.W.-3. On a consideration of their evidence as a whole it was found and held that the prosecution case was not free from doubts. Consequently the accuseds were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has not properly appraised the evidence of the informant (P.W.-6), wife of the deceased (P.W.-5) and father of the informant (P.W.-3). He also criticized the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court in not placing reliance on the postmortem report (Exhibit- 2) in the light of deposition of doctor (P.W.-8). According to 3 him such reasoning is totally misconceived if not irrelevant . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence of P.W.-6, 5, and 3 has come to a conclusion that they were grossly contradictory in so far as implication of the accuseds (Opposite Parties) are concerned. It is submitted that considering the scope of the jurisdiction invoked by the informant, the view taken by learned Trial Court cannot said to be perverse or wholly illegal. On a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after perusing the judgment in question, this court is of the view that on the basis of materials available on record learned Trial Court has taken a view that the implication of the accused (Opposite parties) are not proved to the hilt. In my view the said view cannot be said to be perverse and/or illegal. If two views can reasonably be deductible from the evidence on record and the Trial Court has taken a view which, in the present case, is consistent with the principle of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence is structured, the same do not merit interference. There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. S.P. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)