IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.2 of 2009 STATE OF BIHAR Versus NARRESH MAHTO, S/o Late Kishori Mahto, resident of village-Girihinda, P.S. & District- Sheikhpura. ----------- 3. 22.01.2009 This government appeal is against the judgment dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Seikhpura in S.T. No. 255 of 2006/Tr. No.24 of 2008 whereby the appellant, who was tried for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was acquitted of the charge because the learned trial court was not satisfied that on the basis of evidence produced by prosecution, the prosecution was able to prove the charge. The prosecution story as set out by the informant Chameli Devi, the mother of the deceased Satish Mahto was that Satish Mahto was working as a tractor driver of the respondent/accused Naresh Mahto and that on 25.3.2005 at about 3 P.M. the deceased gave Rs.300/- to her and had gone away saying that his master (respondent- accused) would pay him Rs.4000/- more and that he will come on the next day with that money. The informant asked the deceased not to go that day but the deceased went away saying that his master (respondent-accused) had also called him for irrigating onion field. The informant further alleged that on 26.3.2005 the respondent/accused Naresh Mahto came to her house on a motorcycle and inquired about her son (deceased). She replied that Satish Mahto (deceased) had gone to his house and had not returned from there. Then the respondent/accused stated her to go and search for his son because a dead body was lying in the field and it was said to be the - 2 - dead body of her son. The informant then further stated that she went out and found a dead body which was of his son lying in the field of GaneshYadav. She alleged that the respondent/accused killed the deceased and threw the dead body in the filed of Ganesh Yadav. The prosecution examined five witnesses on the point of occurrence. The P.Ws.1 to 5 stated that the deceased had gone out saying that he will bring money from his master i.e. the respondent/accused but he did not come back and his dead body was found. The informant was examined as P.W.1 but in her evidence she gave a different story inasmuch as on the next day, the day of Holi festivals, Makua the Bhagina of respondent/accused had come to her and had informed her that a dead body was lying and that thereafter, she had gone to the house of the sister of respondent/accused who is married in the village and there she found the respondent/accused who stated to her that he (respondent/accused) had killed her son. Then she also deposed that she had lodged F.I.R. about the occurrence. The evidence of the informant is contradicted by her averments in the F.I.R. that the respondent/accused had himself came to her house and had asked about the deceased and had also informed her that a dead body was lying in the filed. The informant stated in her evidence that the respondent/accused admitted before her that he had killed the deceased but this important fact was not disclosed by her in the F.I.R. which was her earliest statement recorded by police. Besides the evidence as above, no other evidence was adduced by prosecution for proving the occurrence. On consideration of the evidence, facts and circumstances, - 3 - we are not inclined to make any interference into the impugned order by way admitting this appeal and fixing it for hearing. In such view of the matters, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal stands dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V. N. Sinha, J.) Ravi/-