IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.17 of 2007 BIBI SABILA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. MOBARAK HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF BADRE ALAMPUR, SHAHZANGI, P.S.- HABIBPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR (INFORMANT). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. SARFARAZ, SON OF MD. KHURSHID ANWAR. 3. MD. KHURSHID ANWAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN 4. MD. RAJU, SON OF MD. KHURSHID ANWAR. 5. MD. PAPPU, SON OF MD. KHURSHID ANWAR. ALL RESIDENTS OF BADRE ALAMPUR, P.S.- HABIBPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ----------- 7 14.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, who is informant of Jagdishpur (Habibpur) P.S. case no. 61 of 2004, is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court (Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C.-V), Bhagalpur) in Sessions Trial No. 1105/2004/Tr.. no. 437/2006. Petitioner filed the aforesaid case which was instituted under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 376/511 IPC. Investigation was carried out whereafter charge-sheet was filed leading to trial. The trial court by order dated 6.1.2005 framed the charges against the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 5). It appears that thereafter matter remained pending for few months and ultimately the prosecution case was closed on 16.6.2005 after having noticed that summons were sent to the witnesses including the informant who refused to receive the same. It appears that the Public Prosecutor conducting the case filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 20.6.2005 2 for reopening the case and thereby providing an opportunity to the prosecution to examine witnesses. Order dated 3.8.2005 (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) indicates that having regard to the submissions and also keeping in view the ends of justice, learned trial court allowed the same. It further appears from the order-sheet that subsequent thereto, several opportunities were given to the prosecution to adduce evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the informant. The order further reflects that non-bailable warrant of arrest were directed to be issued against the official witnesses. Trial court vide order dated 18.9.2006 granted last opportunity to produce witnesses. The matter was thereafter fixed on the next date i.e. 27.10.2006. On that day, the prosecution again defaulted in producing any witness. Consequently learned trial court closed the prosecution evidence. The matter was thereafter dealt with on merit. Learned trial court evaluated the three prosecution witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution whereafter it has been found and recorded that the genesis of the alleged occurrence itself seems to be doubtful. P.Ws 1 and 2 were not found reliable and trustworthy. The learned trial court further noted that the I.O. and the doctor of the present case had also not been examined in this case. The informant herself was not examined in this case. Taking overall view of the materials on record, it was found and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge(s) and as such the accuseds were discharged. 3 This court does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order meriting any interference. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )