Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 1998 Against the order and judgment dated 19.01.1998 passed by Sri S. Prasad, the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in S. Tr. No. 272 of 1989. The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Singhashan Singh Yadav, Son of Late Bhul Singh. 2. Surendra Singh @ Yadav, Son of Ram Kaval Singh. 3. Kapil Yadav @ Kapildeo Singh, Son of Ram Kaval Singh. All R/o. village – Sawari, P.S. – Kachhawa, District – Rohtas. .... .... Respondents. With CRIMINAL REVISION No. 184 of 1998 Sambhu Saran Singh, Son of Ram Basan Singh, resident of village – Sabari, Police Station – Nasriganj, District – Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Singhashan Singh Yadav, Son of Late Mul Yadav. 3. Surendra Singh @ Yadav. 4. Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Singh Yadav, both sons of both sons of Ram Bachan Singh, all residents of village – Sabari, Police Station – Kachba Nasriganj, District – Rohtas. .... .... Respondents/ Opposite Parties. ****** For the Appellants : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. For the Respondents : Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. No body appears on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties. Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate is appointed as 2 amicus curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned amicus curiae. 3. The Government appeal and the criminal revision have been heard together and disposed of as both arise out of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned lower court in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1989 by Sri S. Prasad, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram vide its order dated 19th January, 1999. 4. The prosecution case as alleged is that on 11.06.1988 at about 6:00 P.M. while informant was sitting in his Dalan along with his father Ram Baran Singh, Satendra Singh and Birendra Singh, in the mean time Singhasan Yadav armed with rifle, Kapil Yadav armed with country made pistol, Surendra Singh and Ram Kawal Singh were armed with Lathi came and on the command of Singhasan Yadav pointed out his revolver toward the father of the informant and Ram Baran Singh father of the informant called Baijnath but in the mean time the rifle fired and bullet of the rifle caused injury in the hand of his father and his father got injury in the finger of his hand. However, the further case is that Kapil Yadav fired by his country made pistol causing injury to the informant and Satendra Singh. 5. On the written report of the informant, FIR was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the 3 case was committed to the court of Sessions and after framing of the charge the witnesses examined and after considering the oral and documentary evidence the trial court held that the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence as there is sufficient contradiction between the evidence of the prosecution witness regarding the place of occurrence. Some have stated that at the time of occurrence they were in Dalan and some have stated that they were in Sahan whereas Dalan is covered space and the Sahan is open space. The manner of occurrence has also not been established as the injury on the persons of Ram Baran Singh possible as per the manner in which it is alleged or as per the evidence that he caught hold of the barrel when firing and when he has caught hold of the Nal no possibility of his injury on the palm on the finger unless it is on the point from where the cartridge comes out and had there being situation then the entire hand would have been blown up and hence held that the manner of occurrence has also not been proved and hence the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. However, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1988 and the learned trial court considered the evidence in detail, the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence as per their evidence has not been established and the injury as per the occurrence was not in conformity with the evidence and the witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 4 2 have stated that they came to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing by rifle and they claimed to have seen the occurrence, their evidence are not worthy of confidence. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence, I do not find any merit in the Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision and hence they are dismissed. 7. Mr. Rishi Raj, shall be supplied a copy of this judgment and he shall be entitled for the fee of hearing payable by High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 01st August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.