IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42465 of 2008 SANJAY SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 13.1.2009 Heard. The petitioner who is an accused in a case under sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act, is said to have fired a shot so as to killing the deceased . That, implication comes through a person named Ramawtar Giri. The contention is that the FIR indicates as if the informant was not knowing the petitioner from before the occurrence. But two paragraphs of the case diary like paragraphs 13 and 31 may indicate that the informant was well acquainted with the petitioner who is alleged to have fabricated the doors of the house of the deceased and who used to visit the deceased for realizing the cost therefor and as such, describing the petitioner as a person unknown to the informant, could be sufficient to create a grave doubt towards the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of crime. I have been taken to paragraphs 13 and 31 of the case diary by the learned APP and also by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. It does appear that there 2 is some anomaly between the fard-e-beyan and the statement of the informant but that remains a question to be reconciled by taking evidence and giving an opportunity to the informant to explain the anomaly. The case of the prosecution appears, for the time being, of a nature in which the petitioner could be the assailant of the deceased and considering that, the petition is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )