IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR ……..Appellant. Versus 1. ANIL KUMAR, SON OF RAM PRASAD SINGHA, 2. SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF RAM PRASAD SINGHA BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KOSHI COLONY, SAHARSA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 3. KAUSHAL KUMAR YADAV, SON OF ANANT LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF GAUTAM NAGAR GANGJALA, WARD NO. 8, SAHARSA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ………Respondents. ----------- 03/ 31.03.2010 The appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal of the accused persons namely the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide judgment dated 25th May, 2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2007. The appellants were charged under Sections 148, 307 read with 149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the offence of rioting with deadly weapons attempting to murder the informant Ganpati Jha in prosecution of the common object. From the narration of the First Information Report and from the evidences of the witnesses, it appears that there was land dispute between the parties which were being contested which has resulted into a proceeding under Sections 107 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The litigation has further escalated and it has traveled to different forums and according to the allegation on account of that the assault was made. 2 The trial court has discussed the entire evidence and has analyzed the reasons upon which it has found that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused persons namely the respondents. The circumstances discussed are that no blood was found at the place of occurrence, no trail of blood was available, the witnesses were inconsistent and the medical report was not in a line with the allegation. These were the enough grounds, upon which the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses and has found a number of loopholes in the prosecution version. On that account the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the trial court. So, on merit this Government Appeal is not fit to entertain. The delay of 176 days is also not being condoned in view of our discussion with regard to the merit of the case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)