IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.296 of 2008 BODH NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE DASHRATH PRASAD SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- DHARAMRAHI, P.S.- BELHAR, DISTRICT- BANKA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANBIR SINGH, SON OF LATE JAI KARN SINGH 3. UDAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE JAI KARN SINGH 4. RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE JAI KARN SINGH 5. RUDRESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE AYODHYA PD. SINGH, No. 2 TO 4 R/O- VILLAGE- BELDIH, P.S.- BELHAR, DISTRICT- BANKA NO. 5 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGAON, P.S.- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP ----------- 3 25.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of the case and is raising grievance with respect to the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by learned Trial Judge in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 1999 whereby the accuseds facing trial (O.P. nos. 2 to 5 herein) were acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. In respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 7.8.1998, an F.I.R. was lodged on 8.8.1998 by the informant (P.W. 6) alleging therein that he was informed by one Nursingh Mandal that his brother was done to death by the accused persons. Ultimately, the O.P. nos. 2 to 5 were put on trial. At the trial, 07 witnesses wee examined. Learned trial court in paragraph 10 of the judgment found as under: “In the light of above argument advanced by both learned counsel of the respective side I feel necessary for just decision of case to discuss 2 the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in this sequence firstly I would like to discuss the evidence of P.W. 1 Narsingh Mandal who is said to be eye witness of the occurrence as per prosecution after long time during the course of investigation but in court he became hostile. P.W. 2 Mukesh Kumar Singh son of deceased stated before court that his father went there with Rabindra Singh but when he did not return he feel that his father can stay at Beldiha but on the next day morning Nursingh Mandal (P.W. 1) came at his residence and informed him that Rabindra Singh, Uday Singh, Ranbir Singh, Amod Singh and other have killed Chakradhar Babu. P.W. 2 went there and found dead body of his father near canal. P.W. 3 Sonu Kumar s/o-deceased and other son of deceased submitted before court a different story that his brother (P.W. 2) informed him that Rabindra Singh and Chakradhar Singh were seen at Beldiha More and morning as per his evidence Nursingh Mandal informed him regarding the occurrence. P.w. 4 Babloo Singh is nephew of deceased and son of informant stated before court that next day morning Nursingh Mandal and Narayan Mandal informed him regarding the occurrence that trial facing accused persons killed the deceased. P.W. 5 is doctor who conducted autopsy of deceased and found incised wound which are in number 5 (five) on his body. I. An incised wound of size 6” X 1” X deep to the skull bone (Bone cut) on the left side of the head. II. An incised wound of size 4” X ½” X Bone Deep (Bone cut) on the left side of head below injury no. I. III. An incised wound of size 6” X1” X Bone Deep (Bone cut) on the left side of the head below Injury no. II. Cutting pinna of the left ear too. IV. An incised wound of size 8” X 3” X 4” on the left side of the neck, cutting of the informant structure of the neck like artries, veins, trachea etc. V. An incised wound of size 2.5” X ½” X Deep to the bone on the posterior surface of the head (occipital region). The above mentioned injuries were caused by the sharp cutting weapon. Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage due to above 3 injuries. Time since death within 24 hours. P.W. 6 informant who also came to know regarding the occurrence on 08/08/98 at about 5.30 A.M. morning. P.W. 7 Anwarul Haque who is Investigating Officer of this case has supported the prosecution case. Meaning thereby as per prosecution case only one person who is said to be eye witness of the occurrence i.e. P.W. 1 and who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Entire prosecution story came to the knowledge of informant and the son of deceased and son of informant through the mouth of P.W. 1 which reflect that entire witnesses of the prosecution were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. They came there and found the dead body of deceased. Entire case depends upon the circumstances for which prosecution connect the accused persons to this occurrence while defence submitted before court that deceased was terror of the locality and killed by other persons. Due to land dispute accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. “ On an analysis of their evidence, it was found that admittedly other P.Ws, except P.W. 1 were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence, as they all claim knowledge about the occurrence through P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has not supported the prosecution case inasmuch as he was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. Learned trial court on the basis of materials on record has concluded that even theory of last seen was also not supported by the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order of acquittal has been recorded. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, this court is satisfied that a reasonable and legal view based on the evidence on record has been taken by the learned trial court. The order, therefore, 4 does not suffer from any patent illegality. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )