IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.40 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus 1. SUDARSAN SINGH SON OF SRI RAM DULAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAWADA BEN, P.S.- UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR 2. TRILOKI SINGH SON OF SRI RAM JIBAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAWADA BEN, P.S.- UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR 3. JAI KISHORE SINGH SON OF SRI RAMDAT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- NAWADA BEN, P.S.- UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR 4. MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RAJBALABH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAWADA BEN, P.S.- UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR ----------- 3 24/08/2010 The instant appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30.3.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 1989 by Sri Panchanan Sharma, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara whereby respondents have been acquitted for the charges framed against them under Sections 307, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The ground which has been taken for assailing the judgment of acquittal is that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses while recording the finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. 3. The First Information Report of Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No. 158 of 1985 was registered on 2 26.11.1985 under Sections 149, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of fard-beyan of informant Jai Nath Singh Yadav. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.1985 at 12 Noon, the Pleader Commissioner has fixed one stone in the land of the informant after its measurement. When the Pleader Commissioner returned back, Sri Ram Singh arrived at the place of occurrence with Bhala, Sudarshan Singh with Bhala, Triloki Singh with Farsa, Mithilesh Singh with Bhala, Jaikishore Singh with country made pistol, Dhinar Singh with lathi. Sudharshan Singh assaulted the informant’s son Hari Krishana Singh Yadav. Jai Kishore Singh fired from country made pistol which hurt Hari Krishna Singh. Mithilesh Singh assaulted the informant from the back side of Bhala and he also sustained injury on the back of his body. The occurrence was witnessed by Rama Shankar Singh, Manoj Kumar and Brajesh Kumar Singh who are the co-villagers and several other persons. The case was investigated into and chargesheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. During trial, two accused persons namely, Dhinar Singh and Sri Ram Singh died and the trial 3 continued against four accused persons only. 5. In order to prove its charge against the respondents, the prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses. They are: Hari Krishna Singh Yadav, the son of the informant (PW 1), Radha Krishna Singh Yadav (PW 2), Jag Lal Rai, the Pleader Commissioner (PW 3) and Tarkeshwar Prasad (PW 4). The informant could not be examined as he died during trial. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the prosecution could not bring the injury report of injured Hare Krishna Singh Yadav (PW 1) on the record. The doctor was also not examined as a witness who has examined the injured persons. The Investigating Officer was also not examined. 7. Deposition of PW 1 only indicates that he received scratch injury on his chest. The nature of injury, which was essential for proving charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, could not be ascertained due to non-examination of the doctor and non-production of the injury report. The Trial Court also noticed the contradiction in between the evidences of PWs 1 and 2, as PW 1 has deposed that Jai Kishore Singh fired from country made pistol and PW 2 had deposed that firing was made from the gun. Similarly the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 was contradictory in 4 relation to the assault given by Mithilesh Singh on Jai Nath Singh Yadav. 8. According to PW 3, the Pleader Commissioner, he was not the eye witness to the actual occurrence. He only deposed regarding the measurement of land and fixing of stone. He is an hearsay witness. As per his deposition, the incident was narrated before him by the Chowkidar. The Chowkidar has also not been examined. Other witnesses named in the Chargesheet as eye witness were also not examined. 9. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence of these four witnesses came to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents-accused persons on the ground of non-production of injury report and non-examination of the doctor. So far the contradiction is concerned, that was also noticed by the Trial Court. On consideration of entire materials, the learned Trial Court has given findings that the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge against the accused and passed the judgment of acquittal. 10. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter considering that there is no error in recording the findings by the Trial Court. 5 11. Accordingly, this government appeal is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin