The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for convincing and sufficient evidence to establish the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

By a judgment dated 26.10.2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 732/2015 and 240 of 2016, the respondents No. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is sought to be challenged by the appellant in the present appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid sessions trial had arisen out of Sabour P.S. Case No. 160 of 2015. The appellant happened to be the informant of the said criminal case.

2. The place of occurrence, as described in the first information report, is the house of the in-laws of his son (the deceased) at village Mansarpur where the informant was also present. He alleged in his written report, which is the basis for registration of FIR that the father-in-law, the brother-in-law and the wife of the deceased had forcibly taken the deceased to their house at village Mansarpur. The informant's son was thereafter tied with a pole by means of a rope and thereafter in his (informant's) presence, respondent No. 3 Gaurav Yadav (brother-in-law of the deceased) with an iron rod, respondent No. 2 Amarnath Yadav (father-in-law of the deceased), respondent No. 6 Sonika Devi (wife of the deceased), respondent No. 4 Nirmala Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased), respondent No. 5 Suman Devi (wife of brother-in-law of the deceased) all with lathi, rod, gandasa and pistol etc. mercilessly assaulted him, who finally succumbed to the injuries. When the appellant tried to save his son from assault, he was pushed away by the accused persons. The date and the time of occurrence, as disclosed in the FIR, was 09.08.2015 at 12 noon, on which date itself the FIR was registered. Upon completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against respondents Amarnath Yadav, Sonika Devi and Nirmala Devi while keeping the investigation pending against others. Subsequently, the police submitted chargesheet against three other persons, namely, respondents Gaurav Yadav, Suman Devi and one Ram Bilas Yadav. After framing of the charge, the private respondents were put to trial as they denied the charges.

3. At the trial, altogether six witnesses were examined including the informant (P.W. 3), brother of the deceased (PW-1), sister of the deceased (PW-2), one Nawal Kishore Yadav (PW-4), the Investigating Officer (PW-5) and the doctor (PW-6). Two witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8 came to be declared as hostile.

4. It is noteworthy that PW-1 and PW-2 are apparently not the eye-witnesses. PW-1 is said to have received the information regarding the occurrence from the informant. He is thus a hearsay witness. PW-2 is apparently also a hearsay witness.

5. The trial court has analyzed in the impugned judgment the evidence of PW-2, who had deposed at the trial that she had received the information on her phone that her brother had been killed whereafter she had rushed to the in-laws' house of her deceased brother. After having talked to the father-in-law of the deceased, when she was on her way back to her maike, she met the appellant who disclosed to her the manner in which the deceased was killed. She is said to have, thereafter, went back to the in-laws' house of his brother where he was killed. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 on various counts including her conduct. The trial court has noted in its judgment the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a bush and that PW-2 was present there on the spot, but the inquest report did not disclose her presence at the place of preparation of the inquest report. The informant (PW-3) fully supported the prosecution's case as was disclosed by him in the FIR. He deposed that respondent No. 3, had broken the teeth of the deceased by piercing an iron rod in his mouth and respondent No. 2 had given a gandasa blow over the neck of the deceased. He also deposed that respondent No. 2 had pierced a rod in on