IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1321 of 2010 RAM BINAY YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04. 25.11.2010 This appeal has been preferred by the informant of Bahadurpur P. S. Case No. 231 of 1997, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 27.05.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1999. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted one of the accused Shashi Bhushan Yadav for committing offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. But, so far the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are concerned, they have been acquitted of all the charged framed against them under section 147, 148, 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The FIR was instituted by the informant, P.W. 7, namely, Ram Binay Yadav on 29.11.1997 at 09.30 p.m. at R. B. Memorial Hospital, Darbhanga. The informant in his fard-beyan, which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge of Bahadurpur Police Station, P.W. 10, has stated that in the evening of 29.11.1997, he along with his brother Ram Pukar Yadav, Dhanik Lal Yadav and Suresh Yadav, when 2 returning to their home after taking feast on the occasion of Shradh ceremony of the wife of Tapeshwar Singh and when they reached near Taralhi Chauk, the accused persons, Shashi Bhushan Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Garthu Yadav, Upendra Yadav surrounded Ram Pukar Yadav variously armed with bomb, dagger and Farsa surrounded Ram Pukar Yadav and started hurling abuses and Shashi Bhushan Yadav gave dagger blow to Ram Pukar Yadav, Garthu Yadav and Dinesh Yadav threw bomb with the intention to kill him. Sita Ram @ Khirhar Yadav, Raj Narayan Yadav also came and assaulted Ram Pukar Yadav with knife and Lathi. Some other accused Ram Babu Yadav, Prahlad Yadav and Kafil Mian threw bomb and assaulted with dagger. Basant Yadav also came and assaulted with Chhura. The accused persons were charge-sheeted and they were committed to face the trial. The prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses. The Trail Court while considering the evidence of witnesses has disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 3, Rinku Kumari as well as individual evidence of all these witnesses. Rinku Kumari, who was 12 years of age at the time of her deposition in Court, has stated that she was also coming with her 3 father, the informant, but so far other witnesses are concerned, they were not there at the place of occurrence with them. They were also coming, but they were far behind them. The case of the prosecution is that Shashi Bhushan Yadav gave Chhura blow in the abdomen of the deceased, Ram Pukar Yadav and the accused Basant Yadav and Dinesh Yadav gave Chhura blow at the back of the deceased and all other accused threw bomb. The injury report, which has been produced do not indicate any injury caused by explosive substances. So far injury caused by Chhura by Basant and Dinesh Yadav is concerned, that was also not found on the person of the deceased. As per the medical report only one injury caused by weapon like Chhura was found at the abdomen of the deceased. The Trial Court, after discussing the evidence of witnesses, in detail, has also considered the non- production of Doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and the Doctor who examined Ram Pukar Yadav initially at R. B. Memorial Hospital, Darbhanga. Only Dr. Hemant Kumar, P.W. 9, was examined and deposed on the basis of the injury register available at R. B. Memorial Hospital, 4 Darbhanga. Such evidence is inadmissible, as the injury report of a Private Hospital is not an official document u/s 35 of the Evidence Act. In fact, there was no substantial evidence on record to show that injuries, caused by the accused persons were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The Trial Court in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment has noted down the reasons for not believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges framed against the accused persons. Besides this, it was found by the Trial Court that FIR was belatedly dispatched to the Court and no reason for such delay was assigned by the prosecution. Considering the impugned judgment, which has been written in detail, discussing each and every aspect of the prosecution evidence, we do not find any infirmity, due to which the impugned judgment could be put under the cover of perverse judgment. There is no reason to interfere with this judgment of acquittal. This appeal is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.) 5