JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 224 of 2025, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hilsa, District Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2003 / Reg. No. 8423 of 2014, arising out of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 373 of 1998. By the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the Respondent No. 2, namely Nakul Prasad @ Nakul Yadav, was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court, while affirming the acquittal, held that the prosecution case was not free from doubt. The High Court principally noticed the mismatch between the ocular version and the medical evidence, the non-examination of material independent witnesses, the hostility of the two independent witnesses examined at the trial, and the fact that the remaining material witnesses were related/interested witnesses whose evidence required closer scrutiny.

3. The limited question before us is, whether the concurrent acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court suffers from such perversity, manifest illegality, or gross mis-appreciation of evidence as would warrant interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that on 11.10.1998, the informant Raju Kumar, along with his elder brother Vinod Prasad, (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), the present petitioner Sanjay Kumar (son of the deceased), and other villagers had gone to Yogipur market for purchasing household articles. While they were returning, at about 4:00 p.m., near the paddy field of one Jairam Singh at Soharpur Village, the Respondent No. 2, along with other accused persons, allegedly intercepted and surrounded them. The Respondent No. 2, armed with a country-made rifle, is alleged to have fired at the deceased, the shot striking him on the right side of his chin/beard. As observed by the High Court in para 2,

“2. One of the accused named Anugrah Prasad, then instigated others, that their enemy and main opponent Binod Prasad (deceased) somehow came into clutch, shoot him to death. After that, the accused Anugrah Prasad, armed with a rifle fired a bullet which struck the deceased on the forehead, then the accused Bablu Prasad who was armed with rifle fired a shot that hit on the kanpati of the deceased, after that accused Rajdev Prasad who was armed with rifle fired a bullet which hit at the back of head and Nakul Prasad (accused in the present case) who was also armed with rifle fired a bullet which hit the deceased on the right side of the chin. Consequently, the informant's brother Binod Prasad sustained severe injuries and died on spot…”

5. The deceased succumbed to the firearm injuries at the spot. The fardbeyan was recorded on the same day at about 21:45 hours, and the FIR came to be registered the next day on 12.10.1998 at about 09:30 hours as Hilsa P.S. Case No. 373 of 1998, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Respondent No. 2 was named as one of the accused.

6. The case of the Respondent No. 2 was subsequently split up and was tried separately in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2003. Cognizance was taken on 08.09.2003, and charges were framed against the Respondent No. 2 on 13.06.2012.

7. During the trial, the prosecution examined, among others, Sanjay Kumar (PW-1), Sudhanshu Kumar Vibhav (PW-2), Raj Kumar (PW-4), Dr. Awadesh Kumar Singh (PW-6), and Manmohan Prasad (PW-7), the Investigating Officer. Tunni Prasad (PW-3) and Vinni Bhagat @ Vindi Bhagat (PW-5) were declared hostile. The defence examined several witnesses in support of the plea of alibi,