CRIMINAL REVISION No.293 OF 1999 -------- Against the judgment dated 18.3.1999 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial no.40 of 1997. --------- KUNA DEVI, wife of late Gulki Yadav, resident of village-Pandeypur Agrauli, P.S.-Daraunda, District- Siwan-------------------------------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. MAHESH YADAV, son of Badsah Yadav, resident of village-Pandeypur Agrouli, P.S.-Draunda, District- Siwan 2. Madan Yadav, son of Phulena Yadav, resident of Pandeypur Agrauli, P.S.-Draunda, District-Siwan 3. Kanhaiya Yadav, son of Shivsagar Yadav, resident of village- Rasulpur, P.S.-Maharajganj, District- Siwan(Saran) 4. The State of Bihar-----------------------------(Opp.Parties) ------------ For the petitioner : None For the State : Mr. S. Azim, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J. None appears for the petitioner or for the Ist party accused persons. Only counsel for the State is present. I have gone through the records. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that at about 12 - 1 a.m. in the night four persons variously armed with lathi, khanti and dagger came to the darwaja of the informant, while she was sleeping, assaulted her with khanti. Reacting thereof she cried, her grand- daughter also woke up. She was also assaulted by the accused persons by dagger. Thereafter, they entered the room of Chandrawati Devi, assaulted her with dagger as a result she died. Further allegation is - 2 - about taking away of four boxes by the miscreants containing clothes, ornaments etc. worth Rs.7,000/- to 8,000/-. Villagers came on hulla. 3. After investigation chargesheet submitted, trial commenced, charge framed, witnesses examined and after hearing the parties all the accused persons are acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Illegality has been shown committed by the trial court while assailing the judgment but general and vague grounds are taken for the same. 4. In all ten witnesses are examined in this case, of them P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 are co-villagers, P.W.3 is grand-daughter of the informant, P.W.4 is daughter of the informant, P.W.6 is informant herself. P.W.7 is a doctor, who conducted the post mortem, P.W.8 is also a doctor, who examined the informant, her grand-daughter and her grand-son, Sunil, P.W.9 is a formal witness and P.W.10 is an eye witness. 5. It is admitted case that in the incident Chandrawati Devi died and informant, her grand-daughter and grand-son received injuries. Witness nos.1 to 6 are the witnesses on the point of committing murder of Chandrawati Devi. The only relevant point to be considered here also is that whether accused persons have been named by any of the witnesss or not. 6. Of the witnesses three are villagers, who came on hulla only and they told that they had seen the deadbody and the accused carrying boxes. P.W.5 has stated only that Chandrawati Devi was lying injured. She told him that she was injured by the accused persons. But F.I.R. is not corroborating this statement as that mentions - 3 - immediate death of Chandrawati Devi and she did not name any of the assailants to the informant or her family members. P.W.3, grand- daughter of the informant, has stated about watching 3 to 4 unknown persons assaulting her mother and grand-mother. Her mother has stated that she identified them without naming any one. At this one of them stabbed her mother and she died on the spot. One of the miscreants also inflicted knife on her head. About the grand-mother she has stated that she only named the accused persons. More specifically she states in para-4 that when she awoke saw her mother dead and miscreants had left her house with looted articles. 7. P.W.4 has also stated about disclosure by the deceased of the miscreants that she identified them but without naming any one. This witness had also received injury. 8. The last witness is P.W.6. She fully supports the prosecution case naming all the three. No doubt a single witness is sufficient to pass the order of conviction when for the occurrence rest of the witnesses are also corroborating the prosecution case and is proved trustworthy . But prosecution case is doubted on the point of means and indentification. On that point she states that she identified in the flash of their ( miscreants ) torch which generally is not probable. 9. Thus, I find no mistake committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan, in doubting the case as discussed above and also on the point of identification as there was no sufficient means to identify. So conclusion reached by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, - 4 - Siwan, needs no interference. This revision application is hereby dismissed. Patna High Court, 10th August, 2009 NAFR/Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )