IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.54 of 2009 INAMUDDIN SON OF SARAJUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANHOLI, P.S.- JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. MURSALIM, S/O- LATE KAMAL, R/O- VILLAGE SANHOLI, P.S.- JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. For the petitioner : Mr. Janki Nandan Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nityanand Sinha, APP. ----------- 2 24.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Informant (C.W. 1) of the F.I.R. which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 1068 of 2006 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Bhagalpur is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded on 21.10.2008. .By the aforesaid order, the accused (O.P. no. 2) has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act. It appears that the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 for proving the case besides examination of the informant as C.W. 1 and his brother-in-law (C.W. 2). It is to be noted that they were lodged in jail custody and produced therefrom and as such they have been named as C.W. 1 and C.W. 2. On a consideration of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court has found that P.Ws. 1 to 9 were admittedly not eye witnesses to the occurrence. They, in their respective depositions, stated about the implication of the accused persons in the offence through the informant (C.W.1). C.W. 1 and C.W. 2 presented themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned trial court carefully 2 appraised their evidence and has come to the conclusion that they are at great variance so far as place of occurrence and manner of identification is/are concerned. It is also found that neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer of the case was/were examined to prove the post-mortem report and the place of occurrence. Learned trial court has thus found that non- examination of the I.O., in the facts and circumstances of the case, was fatal. The claim of identification made by C.Ws. 1 and 2 in the torch light flashed by them while the accused were running away from the place of occurrence has also been seriously doubted. In the light of these facts emanating from the records, the order of acquittal has been passed. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order meriting interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )