IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2011
Shiv Nandan Yadav, son of Ram Gulam Yadav, resident of
Village-Dumarkola, P.S. Khaira, District-Jamui.
..................................................................Appellant.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Tilo Yadav.
3. Mato Yadav.
Both sons of Late Huro Yadav.
4. Upendra Yadav, son of Sri Mato Yadav.
5. Ravindra Yadav, son of Salaldeo Yadav.
All resident of village-Dumarkola, P.S. Khailra, District-
Jamui.
......................................................Respondents.
-----------
4. 6.7.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the State.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment
dated 23rd of September, 2010 passed in Sessions Case
No.491 of 1996 relating to G.R. Case No.790 of 1999
under Khaira P.S. Case No.81 dated 12.8.1994, whereby
the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted for the
charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of
the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of the
Explosive Substance Act by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Jamui.
It appears that there was a case and counter
2
case. Though the prosecution case does not mention
anything about the counter version but the judgment
discusses the case and counter case. The counter case
has resulted in Sessions Case No.601 of 1995 and it
relates to Khaira P.S. Case No.80 of 1994. The
Investigating Officer of the case in course of
investigation has found that the alleged occurrence took
place near the paddy seedling lands of accused-
Respondent No.2, Tilo Yadav. Further, it has also come
in the evidence that Tilo Yadav was arrested in Khaira
Hospital in injured condition. This fact was not brought
on record by the prosecution.
There was allegation of assaulting the
informant and others and of exploding bombs and
causing injury to them against the Respondent Nos.2 to
5 but the I.O. who has visited the place of occurrence
has also not found any remnants of explosive device at
the place of occurrence and he has also not found any
blood there. These are the enough grounds to disbelieve
the prosecution case. The court below under such
circumstances has given a correct judgment in
disbelieving the case of the prosecution.
3
As a result, we find no merit in this appeal
and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J)
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S.