ORAL JUDGMENT : V.N. SINHA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the State and the counsel for the respondents. 2. Complainant of Complaint Case No. 315C/86 has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 04.02.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 121/94 whereunder respondent nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code levelled in connection with assault made on the person of Devi Yadav. 3. It appears, earlier for the same occurrence Salakhua P.S. Case No. 54/84 was registered on 03.08.1984 asserting that informant was at his house when on the alarm being raised at the door of respondent no. 2 Ramchandra Yadav, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Devi Yadav lying dead, blood was oozing out of his body. Having seen the dead body informant learnt from Krishna Deo, Janardan Yadav and others that the deceased armed with gandasa and pistol had come to the house of Ramchandra Yadav and was demanding money from Ramchandra Yadav to meet the expenses incurred in connection with filing of bail petition for himself and his father in a murder case, which was refused by Ramchandra Yadav. Refusal to pay the amount annoyed Devi Yadav, who inflicted gandasa blow on Ramchandra Yadav which Ram Chandra Yadav warded off but he suffered cut injury on his finger. Ramchandra Yadav, however, caught hold of Devi Yadav and raised alarm prompting Devi Yadav to take out pistol from his waist, meanwhile, villagers Bijo Yadav, Harinandan Yadav, Satan Yadav, Kamal Kishore Yadav and many others arrived at the place of occurrence. The villagers not only saved the life of Ramchandra Yadav but someone from the crowd taking gandasa from the hand of Devi Yadav inflicted blow causing serious injury to Devi Yadav leading to his instant death. It is further asserted in the fardbeyan that had the villagers not assembled at the house of Ramchandra Yadav, the place of occurrence and inflicted gandasa blow on Devi Yadav, he would have killed Ramchandra Yadav. Gandasa and pistol carried by the deceased were also found lying by the side of his dead body. The fardbeyan, however, did not disclose as to which member of the crowd from amongst the villagers killed Devi Yadav. 4. Gandasa and pistol carried by the deceased were also found lying by the side of his dead body. The fardbeyan, however, did not disclose as to which member of the crowd from amongst the villagers killed Devi Yadav. 4. During investigation of Salakhua P.S. Case No. 54/84 a complaint petition was filed on 15.10.1984 bearing Complaint Case No. 524C/84, which was kept pending awaiting submission of final form in Salakhua P.S. Case No. 54/84. On 21.01.1986 i.e. after about two years of the occurrence another protest petition was filed by Bijendra Yadav about the same occurrence giving different story about the occurrence. According to complaint petition filed on 21.01.1986 Bijendra Yadav along with deceased Devi Yadav and his son Dilip Kumar Yadav was going Maina Manchki to offer ‘Puja’ to Goddess. The female members and the children of the complainant were also following the complainant for offering worship. When complainant, Devi Yadav and others reached near the house of Ramchandra Yadav, Ramchandra Yadav, Harinandan Yadav, Bijo Yadav, Satan Yadav, Kishun Poddar, Kamal Kishore Yadav, Shyam Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav suddenly appeared and caught hold of Devi Yadav and dragged him to the door of Ramchandra Yadav. Accused Kamal Kishore Yadav inflicted gandasa blow on his neck causing serious bleeding injury. At the same time Ramchandra Yadav carrying bhala and pistol, Harinandan Yadav armed with gandasa, Bijo Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav carrying spade, Satan Yadav armed with farsa, Shyam Yadav carrying farsa and Kishun Yadav armed with axe inflicted deadly blows on the person of Devi Yadav and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. 5. Trial Court proceeded in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and examined ten witnesses, duly described in Paragraph 11 of the judgment but rejected their testimony after discussing each of the witnesses in paragraphs 13 onwards on the ground that the version set out in the complaint case and the evidence of the witnesses supporting the same is different from the contents of the First Information Report and the materials collected during investigation. Had the complainant and the witnesses seen the occurrence in which deceased Devi Yadav was killed by accused nos. Had the complainant and the witnesses seen the occurrence in which deceased Devi Yadav was killed by accused nos. 1 to 7 they had no reason not to have given the same version by recording their own fardbeyan on the date of occurrence or in any case within a reasonable time from that date and not after more than two years. The complainant and the witnesses had more than one opportunity to furnish that version as they themselves had filed protest petition during pendency of Salakhua P.S. Case No. 54/84 on 15.10.1984, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 524C/84 but without giving any explanation, much less plausible explanation, for not giving such version on two earlier occasion, which is being given in the present complaint. We see absolutely no justification for the complainant to lodge the present complaint that too after more than two years of the occurrence. 6. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be reasonable. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.