IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1539 of 2007 RAJENDRA ROY @ RAJENDRA SHARMA S/O RAJ KARAN SINGH, R/O VILL. KOTHAR P.S. FATEPUR, DIST. GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DUBAR SINGH 3. BUDHAN SINGH 4. SOMAR SINGH ALL SONS OF BANKEY SINGH, R/O VILL. KOTHAR, P.S. FATEHPUR, DISTT. GAYA --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 19.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party nos. 2 to 4. This case portrays peculiar facts. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions trial no. 62 of 2002/212 of 2005 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II Gaya ( State vs. Dubar Singh & ors.), wherein learned trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge(s) leveled against the accuseds ( opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein). Consequently the order of acquittal was recorded. It may be noted here that the accuseds are the gotiyas of the informant and were facing charge punishable under Section 307/149 of the Penal Code. Learned trial Court found that out of 05 witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution including the informant of the case P.W.5 had not supported the prosecution case. It is to be recorded here that P.W.5 is full brother of Sidheswar Singh who is 2 said to be the victim of the assault giving rise to the present trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without affording adequate opportunity to the prosecution to adduce the evidence the case was closed inasmuch as the application filed on behalf of the informant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also not considered and disposed of by the trial Court. It is thus the contention of the petition that the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court has subverted the cause of justice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the opposite parties, however, supported the impugned order. It is contended that more than adequate opportunity was granted by the Court to the prosecution to examine all the prosecution witnesses in this case. The Court issued summons, bailable warrant, non bailable warrant of arrest against the witnesses cited in the charge sheet. In spite thereof neither the Investigating officer nor the Doctor as also injured of the case was produced for examination. It is next contended that this happened in the backdrop of the fact that in the year 2003 itself a kind of compromise dully affidavited and signed by the parties was filed in the Court which was however not pressed. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned trial Court has found that out of the 05 witnesses PWs 1 to 4 did not support the case and were thus declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. PW5 (informant ) in his deposition has not supported the prosecution case. His deposition 3 is discussed in the impugned order. Petitioner has made the following statement in paragraph no.8. “8. That in order to substantiate the case prosecution examined altogether five witnesses out of four were declared hostile and informant did not support the case as he went in collusion with the opposite parties.” In the backdrop of these facts eloquently reflecting from the record the submission of the petitioner that application filed for summoning and examination of injured (Sidheshwar Singh) does not assume much significance. The admitted position is that the informant in his deposition has not supported the prosecution case. He admits before this Court that he had gone in collusion with the prosecution which is consistent with the stand taken by the parties that a understanding seemed to have been arrived at between the parties. In view of these facts / circumstances, this Court is convinced that no patent illegality was committed by the Court in recording the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)