IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1243 of 2008 GAJENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE VIDYA NAND SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAMARDAH, POST- HARDIYA POLICE STATION- BIHIYA, DISTT. BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KUSHUM DEVI WIFE OF LATE MURLIDHAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAMARDAH, POLICE STATION BIHIYA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. For the petitioner : Mr. Nil Kamal, Advocate. For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Mushtaque Alam, Advocate. ----------- 2 05.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for O.P. no. 2 Informant is aggrieved by the judgment and order by which O.P. no. 2 herein was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Informant (P.W. 4) lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, his father (deceased) had gone for a walk. While he was away from home, the cousin brother of the informant namely Tunu Kumar Singh made murderous attack on him by fire arms which ultimately caused his death. It was also alleged that Panna Devi and Kusum Devi (O.P. no. 2) who are related to the informant as grandmother and aunt were found instigating the main accused. Learned trial court considered the materials/evidence on record and found them sufficient justifying conviction of the main accused (son of O.P. no. 2) and accordingly, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC. Relating to the charge under which O.P. no. 2 was booked, it was found that the evidence was 2 at variance and in the light of admitted position of animosity existing between the parties, it was found and held that charge(s) framed against O.P. no. 2 herein was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is what the trial court has observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment: “ 27.Here in the present case after keen and careful securitization of the evidence of the witnesses coupled with the evidence of the doctor (PW-5) and I.O. (P.W. 6), I find that the previous enmity served as a motive for commission of offence by way of causing murder of Vidya Nand Singh by the accused Tunu Singh with country made pistol but so far as involvement of Kusum Devi in the commission of offence is concerned, she has been dragged by the family members of the informant who are highly interest witnesses of this case with a view to wreak vengeance of her. Besides the murder of the deceased Vidya Nand Singh has been committed out side the house near Jackfruit tree towards west of which is situated the house of Surendra Singh. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and the previous enmity is also proved. There is also inconsistency between the evidence of witnesses as to the manner of instigation and there are contradiction on the factum of the words of instigation alleged to have been spoken of by Kusum Devi. It is also of common experience that no mother more so a widow would ask her son to kill the husband of her own sister and would thus pave way of her own son to go to the gallow or at least to undergo life imprisonment. 28. Under the circumstances and keeping in view the nature and quality of the testimonies of the witnesses, broad probabilities of the case and the proved previous enmity between the parties, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges u/s 302/34 of the IPC against the accused Kusum Devi. I, therefore, find and hold the accused Kusum Devi not guilty of the charges u/s 302/34 of the IPC and acquit her thereunder.” 3 On a perusal of the judgment under challenge and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the trial court has taken a view based on appreciation of the evidence available on record which cannot be said to be unjust or perverse. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )