CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–In the present appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for brevity), the appellant has assailed a judgment dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2018 (T.R. No. 02/2018), whereby, the respondents No. 2 and 3 herein have been acquitted of charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. We have heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has represented the State.

3. The appellant herein is the informant (P.W.-4) of Sadar P.S. Case No. 529 of 2017, registered on 04.10.2017, based on written report of the informant/appellant addressed to the officer-in-charge, Sadar, Police Station, Purnea. It is manifest from the lower court records that the information was received by the police at 4:30 a.m. on 04.10.2017. Distance of the police station from the place of occurrence as mentioned in the first information report (FIR, for brevity) is one kilometre. The appellant/informant (P.W-4), in the aforesaid written report asserted that on the date of occurrence i.e. 3.10.2017 at 8 p.m., his brother Md. Jamal (the deceased) had left for a nearby Santosh Pal Market for shave and had instructed the informant to come there after 15 minutes to the said market. The informant, nearly 20-21 minutes thereafter, while proceeding towards the said Santosh Pal Market, saw his brother, Md. Jamal (the deceased), who, by then, had reached the main road nearby the market. During the time when the deceased was handing over some money to the informant, miscreants, riding in three different motorcycles, arrived there and encircled them. He identified all those six persons as Virendra Kumar Chaudhary (respondent No. 2), Jitendra Kumar Choudhary, Md. Chameli Khureshi, Raju Poddar, Mohit Choudhary (respondent No. 3), Kailash Choudhary and Vilash Choudhary. On the instigation of accused Vilash Choudhary, respondent No. 2 opened fire on the deceased. The informant was thrashed by the accused Jitendra Choudhary and before he could regain his balance, the miscreants had escaped after having shot at the deceased. The deceased is said to have sustained fire arm injury in his chest with blood oozing out from his chest. On hulla having been raised by the appellant, Md. Aftab Alam arrived there and with the help of others, the informant took the deceased to Sadar Hospital where he was declared dead. However, thereafter the deceased was taken to Max-7 Hospital, Purnea as they doubted the opinion of the Doctor at Sadar Hospital. At Max-7 Hospital also, the deceased was declared dead.

4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, whereafter, upon taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial. The charges were framed for commission of the offences punishable under Section 148, 323, 341, 302/149 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Altogether, 7 witnesses were examined at the trial including the informant (P.W.-4), the Doctor (P.W.-5), Investigating Officers (P.W.-6 and P.W.-7). The prosecution got exhibited as evidence, certain documents including the post-mortem report. It is noted that two witnesses, namely P.W.-3 and P.W. 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses during the course of trial. Statement of the persons put on trial was recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. The defence got exhibited as evidence, certain documents to establish that the there were certain criminal cases against deceased. It is evident from the trial court records as well as the impugned judgment of the Trial Court that the occurrence had taken place beside a market in a