IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 9 of 2009 With Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2009 ------- Govt. Appeal No.9/2009 State Of Bihar …. Appellant Versus 1. Bipin Panjiyara, son of late Jagdamba Panjiyara, 2. Tuntun Panjiyara, 3. Punpun Panjiyara, both sons of Late Siyaram Panjiyara, 4. Santosh Panjiyara, son of Bipin Panjiyara, all residents of village – Nijhari, Police station – Shambhuganj, District – Banka .... Respondents Govt. Appeal No. 11/2009 State Of Bihar .... Appellant Versus 1. Bhudeo Mandal, son of Late Chaturbhuj Mandal, 2. Bipin Bihari Mandal, son of Bhudeo Mandal, both residents of village – Nijhari, Police Station – Shambhuganj, District – Banka …. Respondents ----- For the State : Sarvsri Prasoon Sinha, G.A. III, Shishir Kumar, A.C. to G.A. III Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A. III For the Informant : Sarvsri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Adv. Raj Nandan Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Accused : Sarvsri Bamdeo Pandey, Jitendra Pandey, Advocates ----- 5/ 18.11.2009 Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Both the appeals since arise out of common judgment, they have been taken up for hearing at the stage of admission and are being disposed of by this common order. The prosecution case was that the respondents, being variously armed, ransacked the informant’s house and looted away - 2 - properties and that the informant’s nephew Shwetambar Panjiyara (now dead) was also assaulted who died in P.M.C.H. in course of treatment. The learned trial court, considering several infirmities in the case of the prosecution, recorded an order of acquittal. The occurrence was taken place on 8.5.2004 at 9.30 P.M. The deceased Shwetamber Panjiyara was first taken to Shambhuganj hospital on 8.5.2004 and from there he was taken to Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur on 9.5.2004 and, ultimately, he was brought to P.M.C.H. The informant gave a statement (Exht. 2) on 10.5.2004 and on the same day, statement of Shwetamber Panjiyara (Exht. 2/A) was also recorded. Both the statements were sent to the concerned police station by post. The F.I.R. was instituted on the statement of the informant. The trial court did not accept the statement of the deceased under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor it was considered fit to be a dying declaration. The trial court considered that the narration as given in the statement of the informant and the deceased (Exht. 2 and 2/A) were similar word by word and also the seriatum of the accused were similar and thus, the trial court came to a conclusion that it was a manufactured document for the purpose. The trial court also considered that the informant and the deceased had earlier gone to Shambhuganj and thereafter, they had two days with them but during this period they did not inform the police nor lodge any case with the police there. It was also considered by the trial court that P.W. 2 had stated in his evidence that the deceased had been assaulted on the verandah of the house and copious blood had fallen there - 3 - but the I.O. did not find any blood. It was also considered by the trial court that the accused Bipin Mandal and Bhudeo Mandal are father and son and that vide Exht. A which is judgment of previous trial, informant Vachaspati Panjiyar had been convicted in a criminal case instituted by Bhudeo Mandal. Therefore, the learned trial court came to conclude that there was sufficient motive for the informant to implicate the accused persons falsely. It was also considered that the deceased, as per the evidence of P.W. 3, was intermediate pass but he had not signed his statement (Exht. 2/A). The trial court considered that there was no material to show that there was any injury on his hand and that he was not in a position to sign. Thus, it was very suspicious why he put his L.T.I. and did not sign it despite being an intermediate. Considering these infirmities, the learned trial court disbelieved the case of prosecution and recorded an order of acquittal. On our consideration of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any perversity in the findings of the trial court. Thus, there is no ground warranting our interference. Both the Government Appeals, accordingly, are dismissed. Anil/ (C. M. Prasad, J. ) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)