IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR ………… Appellant Versus 1. Murari Yadav 2. Tripurari Yadav, both sons of Sri Jokhan Yadav, 3. Shyam Bihari Yadav, son of Sri Bhubneshwar Yadav, 4. Ramashish Yadav, son of Sri Fehan Yadav 5. Awadhesh Yadav, Naresh Yadav, both sons of Sri Dharmdeo Yadav, all residents of village – Ankhorha, P.S. Mali, District – Aurangabad …………………….. Respondents For the Appellant: Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP For the Respondents: Sri Ravindra Kumar, Advocate ----------- 6/ 18.11.2009 Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal was heard at the stage of admission. The prosecution case, as set forth through the F.I.R. and the evidence, was that the informant, his brother and father were going to call a doctor for attending a lady in the family of the informant suffering under labour pain and that in way the respondent Murari Yadav assaulted on the head of informant’s father with lathi and thus, caused injuries to him. The father was given a primary treatment by a doctor who bandaged the wound and advised to go to Sadar hospital at Aurangabad. The informant carrying the injured father went to local railway station Akorha and waited there for about four hours and took to the father to Dehri but he was found there dead. Learned trial judge has considered the significant infirmities in the case that it appeared to be unnatural that three persons would be going to call a doctor. Though the learned APP tried to explain that earlier the informant had gone alone but when the accused persons had tried to assault him, he came back and, thereafter, - 2 - he was going with his father and brother but the trial court has considered further significant infirmities in the case of the prosecution. It was considered that the informant or his brother stayed at the railway station for four hours but they did not disclose the name of any of the respondents to any of the villagers or the railway officials there. It has also been considered that the informant’s wife had come to the informant in Dehri hospital with money but she too was not told about the occurrence or the name of any of the assailants. The doctor who is said to have given first aid to the deceased has also not been examined. In such view of the matters, the trial court found that the prosecution story was not truly unfolded by the witnesses and the prosecution case was doubtful. In such circumstances, an order of acquittal was recorded by the trial court. We have considered the judgment of the trial court and see that the view taken by it was reasonable and it does not require any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss this Government Appeal. Anil/ (C. M. Prasad, J. ) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)