In fact, two of the accused persons against whom overt acts were alleged, were number even named in the first information report.
The High Court has numbericed the fact that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are closely related.
Respondent No.
2/ 2 Two separate appeals were preferred by Respondent Nos.
The High Court thereafter companysidered the evidence of the sole eye witness, the informant Ayodhya Singh PW9 , and did number rely on his evidence, particularly when the other eye witness namely Jatau Ram was number even examined by the prosecution.
379 and 406 of 1995 which were heard along with Death Reference No.3 of 1995.
Having regard to all these facts, the High Court gave Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna being Criminal Appeal Nos.
285/5 of 1994.
The High Court was number satisfied with the evidence led by the prosecution 3/ 3 with regard to the motive for the assault number did the genesis of the occurrence appear to be natural.
The High Court, on a companysideration of the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting six of the accused persons and the evidence of the eye witnesses did number appear to be reliable inasmuch as even those eye witnesses who alleged overt acts against some of the acquitted accused persons were number believed.
2 and 3 the benefit of doubt and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them.
2 was sentenced to death whereas Respondent No.3 was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
By Judgment and Order dated 22nd November, 1995 the Trial Court acquitted as many as six of the accused persons but companyvicted Respondent Nos.
As many as eight persons were put up for trial before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabua in Sessions Trial Case No.
P.SINGH,J. We have heard companynsel for the Appellant who is the informant.
