IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1237 of 2010 ABDUL GHANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 25-10-2010 The appellant is the informant of the case in connection with Sessions Trial No.178 of 2008. The appeal has been preferred by the informant Abdul Ghani against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Katihar whereby sole appellant Ram Niwas @ Pagla Yadav has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The appeal against the acquittal has been preferred on the ground that the trial court did not consider the evidence of P.W.11, the informant of the case, though he has fully supported the case of prosecution being an eye witness to the occurrence. Another ground is that the court below has illegally ignored the medical evidence, which corroborated the deposition of P.W.11, regarding manner of occurrence. The prosecution case relates to an occurrence dated 16.8.1998, which took place at about 5 P.M. The case of the prosecution as discussed in the fardbeyan of the informant 2 P.W.11 is that he along with several other persons was going with the dead body of the Samdhan of Sajjad Ali. His younger brothers Jakir Husain, Quashim and Anishur Rahman were also with him, who were moving ahead of procession. At that very time, accused persons, namely, Kanhai Yadav, Ashok, Rampravesh Yadav, Pagla Yadav and 3-4 unknown persons came there and asked, why his brother Gani is giving information to the police against them. The younger brother of the informant, namely, Md. Israil replied that he had no knowledge about any such information being given by his brother Gani to the police. The accused persons, thereafter surrounded Israil and Kanhaiya Yadav fired from his pistol which hit at the stomach of the Israil. He fell down and thereafter Pagla Yadav fired from his pistol, which was hit at his head, and he died instantaneously. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 12 witnesses during trial. Out of twelve witnesses only P.W.11 supported the case of prosecution, as all other witnesses were declared hostile. P.W.12 was a doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased and submitted 3 postmortem report. The I.O. of the case was not examined, despite serious efforts made by the trial court. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it transpires that the evidence of witnesses were properly considered and discussed. Reason has also been assigned for not placing reliance on the evidence of solitary witness P.W.11, who supported the case of the prosecution. The sole witness P.W.11 who supported the case of the prosecution is the informant and the appellant of this appeal. In para 10 of the judgment, the trial court has discussed the evidence of P.W.11 which indicates that this witness in his deposition has tried to change the place of occurrence as disclosed in his fardbeyan. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that since the year 1997 he has never met the accused Ram Niwas @ Pagla Yadav. From this statement, an inference has been drawn that on the date and time of occurrence i.e. 16.9.1998 at 5 P.M. also P.W.11 had not seen the accused Ram Niwas alias Pagla Yadav. This evidence of P.W.11 has simply creates a doubt regarding the participation of accused Respondent Ram Niwas 4 alias Pagla Yadav. Since there was no other evidence on record for consideration except the evidence of P.W.11 and that was also not found to be reliable by the trial court, sufficient to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, a judgement of acquittal was passed. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court due to which any interference is not needed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)