JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Nobody appears for the respondents, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present. 2. We have perused the judgment and heard the submissions of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd December, 1988 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1070 of 1986, whereby the accused persons Ram Dayal Singh, Ashok Singh, Chandra Bhusan Singh, Bijendra Singh, Ram Das Singh, Ram Lochan Singh, Shoukhi Lal Singh, Brajesh Singh, Naresh Singh, Diwakar Singh and Dhirendra Singh were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. On 08.07.1985 at 9.30 p.m., an information given to police by Dwarika Singh of village Nirmanchak led to registration of the formal FIR (Ext.4) of Poonpoon P.S. Case No. 72 of 1985 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and the accused persons have been tried. 5. The occurrence is that in the evening of 08.07.1985, at about 6.30 p.m. the daughters-in-law of the informant had been to attend their call of nature. When they were returning then they were abused and on protest Ram Dayal Singh, Ashok Singh, Chandra Bhusan Singh @ Kallu Singh and Bijendra Singh came up with rifles. Ram Dayal Singh was having licensed rifle, whereas, Ram Lochan Singh, Saukhi Lal Singh, Brajesh Singh, Naresh Singh, Diwakar Singh and Dhirendra Singh were having Lathis and other with lethal weapons came there. At the behest of Ram Dayal Singh, Ashok Singh gave fatal shot on the upper part of right arm and arm-pit of Rajendra Singh. 6. In course of trial, the witnesses were examined. The trial court has analyzed the entire depositions in detail and in para-25 of the judgment it has given its view with regard to depositions. 7. The trial court has found the eye witnesses’ P.W. 1 and 2 are not to be worth reliable, as P.W.1 has excluded, the presence of P.W. 2 at the place from before the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have collected later on. P.Ws. 7. The trial court has found the eye witnesses’ P.W. 1 and 2 are not to be worth reliable, as P.W.1 has excluded, the presence of P.W. 2 at the place from before the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have collected later on. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that their wheat was not crushed into flour of the informant’s flour mill on that day. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that informant’s flour mill was not visible from their houses in Village Nirmanchak and so it was interpreted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not have seen the actual occurrence. 8. In the opinion of the trial court, there were vital contradictions and the prosecution case was not above shadow and it was found to be doubtful. So the accused persons were held not guilty. 9. The order of acquittal under challenge discusses all the evidences which have come on the record and the reasons of not relying upon the depositions have been well discussed. 10. The order of trial court can be interfered only when it is found to be beyond record or it is found that the evidences have not been properly discussed. The present judgment noted the depositions of all the witnesses in detail and has given good reasons for disbelieving the testimony of witnesses and it appears that the prosecution was not up to mark. In view of the evidence, benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons and the judgment of the appeal does not require to be interfered by setting it aside. 11. In the result, this Government Appeal is held to be without merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.