IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.1026 of 2010 CHULAHI RAM son of Laldhari Ram resident of Village Chakaramdas, P.S.+ District Vaishali … … Appellant Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jwala Singh son of Harendra Singh 3. Ajay Singh son of Brij Kishore Singh 4. Braj Kishore Singh, son of late Raja Singh 5. Sanjay Singh son of Brij Kishore Singh 6. Shambhu Singh son of Chandradeo Singh All are residents of Village Chakaramdas, P.S. + District Vaishali … … Respsondents For the appellant: Smt.Bela Singh, Adv. For the Respondents: Shri Santosh Kumar ----------- 4. 4.3.2011 Heard both the sides. The appellant Chulahi Ram was the informant of Vaishali P.S.case No. 49 of 1991 under Sections 448,323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur, in Trial No. 327 of 2010, G.R. No. 1564 of 1991. The facts of the case, in brief, is that when the informant was taking meal, the respondents came into his Angan and threw a Hariya as a result of which feacal matter was splashed over there which also fell in the dish of the informant. The informant raised hulla against the act of the respondents upon which all the respondents came and assaulted the informant, his wife as also his parents. It appears that three witnesses were examined in 2 support of the prosecution charges. P.W. 3, the appellant was supporting the prosecution charges who was supported by his wife, P.W. 1 Manju Devi and mother P.W. 2 Sakli Devi. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence of the witnesses and noted down that the Doctor who had examined the informant in Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur where he claimed having gone for his examination was not produced and, as such, was not examined. The Investigating Officer of the case was also not produced and examined. Besides, there was variance in the evidence of the informant and his wife as to when the informant went to Sadar Hospital. As per the wife of the informant, the appellant P.W. 3 went to Muzaffarpur for treatment on the same day in the evening whereas the appellant- informant stated in his evidence that after four days of the occurrence he went there. Not only that, the story of assault on the parents of the appellant was also there but P.W. 1, the wife of the appellant has stated that the parents of the appellant were blind but when P.W. 2 came to depose, she was found deposing as an eye witness. It is true that there is no indication as to whether P.W. 2 was blind or she was fit by her vision. Besides, there is contradiction in the manner of assault and occurrence also as has been noted down by learned trial Judge in his judgment. The reason for acquitting the accused appears also admitted which is subsequently alleged to be the motive of the case also that the informant appellant who was in some service had been removed therefrom on 3 intervention of the respondents. On going through the judgment of acquittal, what I find is that the view taken by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the respondents could also be a reasonable view on account of infirmities which were afflicting the prosecution case due to non-examination of some witnesses, like the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who had allegedly examined the appellant informant. Besides, no independent witness came to support the allegation also. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge and, as such, the appeal is dismissed as of no merit. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)