IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.34 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR . Versus NANDA SINGH & ORS . ----------- For the State: Mr. Binod Bihari, Addl. P.P. For the Respondents: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh Mr. Umesh Kumar 04. 17.01.2011 This Government Appeal, preferred by the State of Bihar, asks us to set aside the judgment of acquittal, dated 18th of March, 2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2005. The Respondents herein were put on trial in the above sessions case by framing charges under section 364, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation, which emanated from the fard beyan of Anil Singh, P.W. 4, which was recorded in the form of his fard beyan by Ram Nath Ray, P.W. 6, who was on that particular day, the Officer Incharge of Makhdumpur Police Station in the district of Jehanabad. It was alleged that the accused persons, having armed themselves with fire arm and other deadly weapons, came to the house of the informant at 09.30 p.m., captured the deceased Rupesh Kumar to drag him away as also to take him in order to kill 2 him. The further allegation was that two rounds of shots were heard being fired and a cry was also heard, which was that of the deceased. But, in spite of that no one dared come out of his respective house to chase the accused persons or to rescue the deceased. The informant and other concluded that Rupesh Kumar has been murdered. We do not know as to on what basis the dead body of Rupesh Kumar was recovered from the river bed on the 25th of April, 2004, that is on the 5th day of the occurrence, but the evidence of P.W. 3 tells us that the hand of the dead body was cut and the same was beheaded also. P.W. 3 claimed identifying it on account of cloths found over it. This evidence of identification does not get corroboration in further particulars, either from P.W. 4, the informant or any competent family member of the deceased. Thus, we have been left in want of some more evidence as regards identification of the evidence. More so, when we turn to the evidence of the Doctor, who did not find any gun shot injury on the dead body in spite of having found two amputating wounds, one on the hand and the other on the head. As regards the motive of the 3 occurrence, it was a tip off on an election day, which had taken place on the same day of occurrence, i.e., on 20th of April, 2004. We have some serious difficulties in acting upon this motive, because the deceased did not bear, as we find from the record, any enmity with the respondents. In fact, it is admitted position by virtue of the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 4 that the two witnesses were accused in a case, in which Rupesh Kumar, who was the full brother of P.W. 4, was cited as a witness. It appears to us that the prosecution wanted to develop this part by subsequent improvement in the prosecution story to lend credence to its case by assigning out that the accused persons did not want that Rupesh Kumar deposed in that case and as such they took him away and killed him. From the admitted evidence of P.W.s 2 and 4, as we have just pointed out, the deceased was a witness against the two witnesses in Makhdumpur P. S. Case No. 8 of 1995. From this evidence, we could safely conclude that Rupesh Kumar could be a person, who was inimical to the informant and P.W. 2 and he may never be killed by the enemies of witness. 4 The Court below has noted at page 6 of the judgment that there were contradictory statements coming from P.W.s 1, 2 and 4, as regards the manner in which he was taken away. Not only that the weapons, which were in possession of the accused person, appear also not creditably stated by the witnesses. There was no blood stain found anywhere around the place. In fact the Trial Court, as also ourselves, could not locate as to what was the real place, at which the deceased was killed. The evidence of the Investigating Officer indicates that he had found some blood like substance, but in spite of having seized, he did not sent it for chemical analysis. The manner of occurrence, i.e., firing two shots so as to killing Rupesh Kumar, we have already noted, did not get support from the evidence of Doctor, who held post mortem examination. P.W. 5 did not find any gun shot injury on the trunk part of the dead body and the two injuries, i.e., beheading the man and the other of imputating the arm, were definitely caused by some sharp cutting weapons. These are the materials upon which the Trial Court has taken a view to acquit the respondents. We find, on considering of the evidence and 5 the judgment of the Trial Court that the view of the trial was also one of the probable views, which could be taken in face of the evidence available on record and, as such, the Trial Court did not fall in any error. The judgment does not suffer from any perversity. The appeal is meritless and it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)