ORDER 1. The judgment dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 267 and 323 of 1995 has been questioned in these appeals by the victim/informant against the judgment of acquittal. The High Court on appreciation of the entire material on record had concluded that no case was made out against the respondents, much less beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Heard. Perused the records. 3. The so called injured eye-witness (PW-4) cannot even be called an eye-witness, as he had not received any injury as is clear from the evidence of the doctor, PW-13. Apart from this, other material has been discarded by the High Court and it has been rightly concluded that the evidence of PW-4 is unbelievable. 4. The distance between the scene of offence and the tyre shop, in which PW-3 was working was 135 feet and in between a bus stand was located where a number of buses were standing. If that is so, it may not have been possible for PW-3 to see any of the accused, as held by the High Court. 5. The information was filed against three persons, naming one person specifically. The person who was named specifically was Anil Kumar Thakur, but the appellant has not proceeded with the appeal before this Court filed against Anil Kumar Thakur since he was not served and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as against him. Thus, the order of acquittal stands as against Anil Kumar Thakur. If it is so, the other co-accused who are respondents before this Court, should also get the benefit of acquittal on par with Anil Kumar Thakur since allegations against all the three accused are similar and common. 6. The motive suggested by the prosecution is that the deceased was appointed as a booking agent in place of accused No. 1, Anil Kumar Thakur in Tirupati Travels and in that view of the matter the accused No. 1 was aggrieved against the deceased, but not an iota of evidence was produced to prove such motive. 7. Though, the first information report was lodged after the incident, the same was sent to the Magistrate after two days. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming for such a long delay. 7. Though, the first information report was lodged after the incident, the same was sent to the Magistrate after two days. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming for such a long delay. Hence, the High Court has rightly observed that such fact creates suspicion in the mind of the Court as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the Test Identification Parade cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as the accused were taken to the Court in public, a number of times within a span of sixteen days, i.e., prior to the holding of Test Identification Parade. 8. Having regard to all the material on record and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused. No grounds for interference are made out. The Criminal appeals are dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.