The court emphasized the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the need for consistent and credible evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged offenses.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

This appeal has been filed under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., putting to challenge a judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Naugachia, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2010 (C.I.S. No.1593 of 2014), whereby the learned trial court has acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant is the informant of the case and father of the deceased.

2. It was the prosecution’s case that daughter of the Mukhiya of the informant’s village was married to a person in Khagaria, who had left her matrimonial home without leaving any clue. It was suspected that the deceased might be involved in helping the said girl elope from her matrimonial home. Harbouring such suspicion in their minds, the accused persons including respondents No. 2 to 4 had caught hold of the deceased at his (the deceased’s) maternal uncle’s place. He was thereafter brutally assaulted and was killed by using fire arms. The dead body of the deceased was subsequently found lying in a maize crop field on 27.06.2009.

3. Based on the accusation made against the persons named in the FIR including the private respondents herein, Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 255 of 2009 came to be registered leveling offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted its charge sheet against the private respondents and others showing the accused Promod Kumar Singh as an absconder. Cognizance was taken thereafter by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, charges were framed against the private respondents No. 2 to 4 by the learned trial court on 01.02.2010, upon commitment of the case.

5. At the trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined including the informant as PW-2, the Doctor (PW-5) and Investigating Officers as PWs 11 and 12.

6. It is noteworthy that during the course of investigation, statements of two witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, the trial court had given the private respondents an opportunity to explain the circumstances emerging against them, based on the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses in conformity with the requirement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. After having evaluated the prosecution’s evidence adduced at the trial, the trial court recorded acquittal of the aforesaid respondents on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the role of these respondents in inflicting fatal injuries, which finally resulted in the death of the victim, beyond all reasonable doubts.

8. Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the trial court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of eye witness Rupesh Singh, who had fully supported the prosecution’s case in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and subsequently resiled from his statement while deposing at the trial. He, accordingly, came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. He has submitted that in any view of the matter, based on the circumstantial evidence available before the trial court, the trial court ought to have convicted the private respondents of the charges framed against them. He has referred to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act to contend that the trial court ought not to have ignored the statement of the eye witness recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

9. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. No ground has been taken nor any submission has been made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the evidence of