IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Government Appeal (DB) No.1 of 2011 State Of Bihar ……………… Appellant Versus 1. Pinki Devi, 2. Jhunni Mandal, 3. Bambam Mandal, 4. Mukesh Mandal, 5. Laddu Lal Tanti, 6. Ghhunnu Tanti & 7. Arbind Prasad ……………Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Shri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP ---------- 2/ 5.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.6.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in S.T. No. 169 of 2007. All the accused persons were charged and tried for the offences under sections 302, 120B and 201 of the IPC. One Bipin Kumar Sinha was murdered and his dead body was found thrown near Masomatia Talab. There was sign of strangulation on his neck. The case was instituted as Jamalpur P.S. Case no. 58 of 2004 in this regard on the basis of fardbeyan of Ranjeet Kumar Ambastha, Sadhu of the deceased Bipin Kumar Sinha. In the fardbeyan, it was alleged that the first wife of Bipin Kumar Sinha died leaving two sons and two daughters. Bipin Kumar Sinha was working as a mechanic in Jamalpur Rail Workshop. After the death of his first wife, he married with Pinki Devi, respondent no. 1. Pinki Devi developed illicit relationship with one Jhunni 2 Mandal, respondent no. 2. Bipin Kumar Sinha, when came to know about this relationship, sent his second wife Pinki Devi to his native village but, the relationship between Jhunni Mandal and Pinki Devi continued there as well. On 8.5.2004, when Bipin Kumar Sinha had gone for his night duty to Railway Workshop at 11.00 P.M., some persons came and called him outside the railway workshop. Accused Jhunni Mandal and three unknown persons took Bipin Kumar Sinha along with them and thereafter, he never came back. His dead body was found lying near a pond next day. Suspicion has been raised in the FIR against Pinki Devi, Jhunni Mandal and other accused persons that they, in connivance with each other, have killed Bipin Kumar Sinha so that Pinki Devi gets employment on compassionate ground and also in order to grab the properties and money. During trial, seventeen witnesses were examined but, most of them were declared hostile. P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 were declared hostile. Only P.W. 5, the daughter of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 5 also does not indicate that she has even seen her father going in the company of the accused while he was alive. Her evidence is hear say evidence and except suspicion against the accused persons, there is no substantial evidence which can be inferred from her deposition. The trial court, discussing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the implication of such evidence for conviction of the accused persons, had come to this conclusion that there is no substantial evidence for their conviction. Fardbeyan was also 3 instituted merely on suspicion and rumour. During trial also no one came forward to bring any evidence sufficient for conviction of the accused persons. On the basis of such weak evidence, which was not sufficient for recording the finding of guilt against the accused persons, the trial judge had no other option than to pass a judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the discussion made therein, we also find that there was no evidence on record to connect the respondent to alleged occurrence and the trial court has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents. In the result, this Government Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Anil/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)