IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.938 of 2010 DR. KALI PRASAD GUPTA …………… Appellant Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….. Respondents ----------- 02. 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the State. The appellant is the informant of Mashrak P. S. Case No. 04 of 1997, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on 08.01.1997. The appeal has been preferred by the informant under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., which is the recent amendment brought and which came into effect on 31.12.2009 itself. Taking advantage of the amended provision, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the informant. The ground, which has been taken by the appellant for challenging the judgement and order of acquittal dated 17.05.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1998, is that, it is perverse. The Trial Court refused to consider any of the 2 evidence, especially the evidence of eye-witnesses. Further ground is that the inference, which has been drawn by the trial court, while considering consistent evidences of the witnesses, is unreasonable. On perusal of the impugned judgement, we do not find that any of the ground, which has been taken by the appellant, is sustainable. There is no perversity in the judgment for the reason that the Judge of the Trial Court has discussed each and every witness’s statement. The so called eye witnesses, who claimed that they have seen the accused, Rajesh Singh (respondent no. 2) and Tufani Singh (respondent no. 3), firing at informant Dr. Kali Prasad Gupta, P.W. 3, are not trustworthy for the reason that the injury report was not found to be the genuine one. The IO, P.W. 9, in his evidence has stated that he never requisitioned for such injury report, which was on its own, sent by the Doctor of the Primary Health Centre after 21 days of the occurrence. The Doctor, who has been examined as P.W. 5, has also stated that though injury report discloses that there was charring injury, but in fact he did not find any such injury on the person of the informant. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is complete non-consideration of the evidences and since 3 simply because there are 4 eye-witnesses saw the occurrence, the Trial Court should have come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved. This is merely because the four eye-witnesses have consistency in their deposition have deposed regarding the firing made by the respondents, it was not enough for passing a judgement of conviction, unless these eye-witnesses are found to be trustworthy. Since this aspect of the matter was completely found absent by the Judge of the Trial Court, he has rightly passed a judgement of acquittal. We do not find any unreasonable inference drawn by the Trial Court while considering and analyzing the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. S.K.M. (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)