IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.39 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. APPELLANT. Versus 1. MD. ZAFAR ALAM, SON OF LATE CHOUDHARY KAYAMUDDIN OF VILLAGE LAKSHMINIYA, P.S. SALKHUA, DISTRICT – SAHARSA. 2. MD. MD. TAUHED, SON OF MD. MOHEED. 3. MD. FIROZ, SON OF MD. SHADIQUI. 4. VIVEKA NAND YADAV, SON OF LATE CHHOTA LAL YADAV. 5. SURYA NARAIN MISTRI, SON OF LATE BILAT MISTRI. 6. MD. RUSTAM, SON OF MD. SAHEB. 7. MD. AZAM, SON OF LATE MD. GAFFAR. 8. MD. SALAUDDIN @ SALO, SON OF LATE MD. ALLAUDDIN. 9. MD. GAFFAR, SON OF LATE ABDUL GAFFAR. 10. MD. PARVEZ ALAM, SON OF MD. GAFFAR. 11. MD. HALEEM, SON OF MD. SDDIQUE. 12. MD. SAHABUDDIN @ SAHEB, SON OF MD. SIDDIQUE. 13. MD. ZAINOOL, SON OF LATE HABIB 14. MD. TULO, SON OF LATE MD. LAHASOO. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KENJARI, P.S. BELDOUR, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 15. KISHORE PASWAN, SON OF KEDAR PASWAN. 16. SHEOJEE PASWAN, SON OF KEDAR PASWAN. 17. JAGARNATH PASWAN, SON OF KEDAR PASWAN. 18. MD. YUSUF, SON OF LATE MD. BASEER. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHANPUR TOLA, P.S. CHAUTHAM, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 19. GHANSHYAM YADAV, SON OF ANAND YADAV. 20. JAI KUMAR SAHANI, SON OF LATE SUKHDEO SAHANI. 21. PRAKASH MISTRI, SON OF MUKHA LAL MISTRI. 22. DIL CHAND PANDIT, SON OF LATE GANPAT PANDIT. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHAUTHAM, P.S. CHAUTHAM, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 23. MD. JAHAR IMAM, SON OF MAZAFFAR ALI, RESIDENT OF MUSKIPUR, P.S. GOGRI, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. ………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 24.08.2010 Heard the counsel for the State. Government appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.3.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1999, 11 of 2005 and 11A of 2005. The trial 2 court by the impugned judgment convicted one Md. Zaheed @ Kamando for offence under Section 302 of the IPC as the evidence was there to show that he fired on Dy.S.P. Satyapal and due to injury received he died at the spot. So far other accused persons is concerned, the judgment of acquittal was passed by the trial court. The present appeal has been preferred against the acquittal of respondent nos. 1 to 23. The case of prosecution is that after receiving the information regarding assemblance of notorious criminals in the house of Zaffar Alam, the Dy.S.P. Satyapal directed the constables and other police personnel to conduct raid on the house so that the criminals can be apprehended or otherwise they will be able to commit some serious offence. The house of Zaffar Alam was raided and surrounded by the police personnel. Firing and counter firing from the side of the criminals as well as police continued. In this cross firing one constable Ganesh Ram received fire arm injury and Dy.S.P. Satyapal also received bullet injury in his chest and he died at the spot. The injury, which was caused to Dy.S.P. , there is specific statement in the FIR that the 3 firing was made by Zaheed @ Kamando. During trial several witnesses were examined. Almost of them are police personnel. 14 witnesses were declared hostile and 9 witnesses supported the prosecution case so far occurrence part is concerned. The witnesses have supported the case of prosecution regarding the firing and counter firing in between the police personnel and the criminals on the alleged date of occurrence at the alleged place of occurrence. But on the point of identification not a single witness came out to depose that the accused, who are facing trial were present and had fired at the time of occurrence. Only evidence on the point of identification came with respect to Zaheed @ Kamando and the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the trial court has discussed the evidence of each and every prosecution witness in detail and then finding has been recorded regarding the acquittal of respondents 1 to 23. Since there is no evidence on the record which shows participation of respondents 1 to 23. There was no occasion for the trial court to pass 4 judgment of conviction against them. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Shyam kishore Sharma, J.)