IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.6 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Appellant Versus 1. DINA NATH SINGH 2. Shiv Nath Singh 3. Jhunu Lal Singh 4. Uma Shankar Singh 5. Daya Jee Singh @ Daya Shankar Singh 6. Sheo Shankar Singh 7. Sanjay Singh 8. Nandji Singh 9. Nilesh Singh 10. Lal Bihari Singh 11. Kamlesh Singh 12. Ramji Singh 13. Ramesh Singh 14. Ram Nath Singh 15. Rajesh Singh 16. Sahatoo Singh … … Respondents ----------- 10. 21.1.2010 After having heard learned counsel for the appellant on the petition seeking condonation of delay which intervened in filing of the appeal and considering the grounds stated therein, we allow this petition and condone the delay in filing the appeal. We have heard Shri Prasoon Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in support of the present appeal and find that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V. Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.341 of 2004/82 of 2006 while acquitting the 2 respondents by his judgment dated 23.10.2008, are sound and unimpeachable. Firstly, the very basis of the case, the F.I.R., which assumed the form of a dying declaration has been doubted as being recorded at the place of occurrence and in presence of the witnesses because the signature did not tally as the informant claimed to be of persons including the deceased. There are many pitfalls pointed out by the learned trial Judge including that under the circumstances of the case it was incumbent upon Sub-Inspector of Police Sujeet Kumar Choudhary to have obtained a certificate from the Doctor of Dinara Primary Health Centre about the state of health of the deceased, specially, his mental disposition. In the light of some other factors, like, not finding the blood at the place of occurrence and the injuries which were found by the Doctor making it impossible for the deceased who was to make statement besides the plea of the defence that the deceased might have been murdered by many of his enemies on account of bearing long criminal antecedent, we find 3 that the judgment has good reasons in addition to the one that the officer who had recorded the fardbveyan, which was submitted to be a dying declaration, has not been examined which is against the law that the man who records the dying declaration of a persons must be brought to the witness box to reproduce the statement verbatim stating that the deceased had made the statement to him. After having considered the above features recorded by the learned trial Judge, we find that the judgment does not suffer from any perversity. This appeal is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)