IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.5 of 2011 THE STATE OF BIHAR …………………..…APPELLANT Versus 1. RAM DAS MAHTO 2. CHURAMAN MAHTO 3. HIRAMAN MAHTO 4. BHAGWAN MAHTO……. ALL SONS OF LATE JHARMAN MAHTO, R/O VILL-ITAWAN, P.S.CHANAN, DIST- LAKHISARAI…………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ------------ 04/ 07-Mar-2011 Heard learned counsel for the State in respect of limitation petition as well as on merits of the appeal. Also perused the judgment under appeal whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the four respondents of charge under Section 364 of the IPC. We were inclined to issue notice in the limitation matter but on considering the appeal on merits it is found that there is no evidence to prove the charge under Section 364 IPC because according to prosecution case itself the deceased who was aged about 20-22 years insisted on going with the accused person for picnic and there is no further material to show that he was subjected to any offence by the accused persons. Even if the trial Court had considered the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons, there is no other circumstance against them except that the deceased opted to go with the accused persons on 2 29.12.1999 at about 10:00 in the day and did not return. The FIR was lodged by a Chaukidaar belonging to a distant village on 30.12.1999 disclosing that an unidentified dead body was found in a field. No doubt, subsequently the father of the deceased alleged that about six months earlier he had a quarrel with Bhagwan Mahto over flow of water in the drain but the trial Court has considered that from 29.12.1999 till 5.1.2001 father or other family members of the deceased did not suspect anybody and no Sanha or any information was lodged with the police. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that admitting this appeal would not serve any purpose because there is no good material to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no purpose shall be served by condoning the delay in filing the Govt. Appeal. The limitation application is disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)