The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove the alleged offence, and in this case, the evidence was found to be insufficient to justify the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I), Araria in Sessions Trial No. 747/2003 (Tr. 31/2003) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced them to pay fine of rupees one thousand each and in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year from which being aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The substance of the prosecution story appearing from the FIR is as follows:

On 12.06.2002 at about 11:00 A.M. allegedly, the informant went to a brick kiln to collect her weekly wages and when she reached to southern corner of brick kiln then the accused Pramod Yadav forcefully caught her from behind and took her inside the brick kiln and under threat committed rape by stuffing a towel in her mouth and during that occurrence one namely Md. Mojahid rushed to the spot on seeing the occurrence and caught hold the accused Pradeep yadav but he was assaulted by the said accused and then informant cried and on hearing her cry several persons gathered there and then the other accused Kishori Yadav who happens to be father of the accused Pradeep Yadav came with some unknown persons and got the accused Pradeep Yadav freed and on resistance made by the prosecution party the accused persons assaulted Md. Mojahid and others.

3. On the basis of written application Raniganj P.S. Case No. 104/2002 was registered under Sections 376, 341, 323 and 379 of I.P.C. which set the criminal law in motion and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants and after taking cognizance of the alleged offences the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions on 20.09.2003 and on 17.12.2003 both the accused were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 325 of I.P.C. to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses along with the victim/informant in oral evidence who are as follows:

5. The prosecution did not give any documentary evidence and after the completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied all the circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution evidences and in defence the accused persons did not give any evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the prosecution witnesses examined during the trial were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution's case in any manner and on the basis of evidence given by all these witnesses the trial court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. awarding fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) upon them while the material witnesses including the informant did not reveal the specific names of the appellants being involved in committing the alleged Mar-Pit with her and other person namely Md. Mojahid.

7. I have heard both the sides and perused the judgment impugned as well as the evidences available on record.

8. Now, I have to see whether the evidences adduced by the prosecution are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the Trial Court with regard to the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.

9. In this matter the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant namely Pramod Yadav of the offence p