Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Heard Mr. Devashish Giri, learned counsel for the appellant/informant, Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, learned counsel for the private-respondents/original accused and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the informant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein, the appellant/informant has challenged the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2022 (arising out of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 17 of 2021 dated 05.01.2021) whereby, the present private-respondents have been acquitted for the charges levelled against them for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has separately provided a copy of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses before the trial court. After referring to the same, learned counsel would submit that there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition of PW-4, the informant, who is the son of the deceased. Thereafter, learned counsel has referred to the deposition given by PW-1, who is the nephew of the deceased. At this stage, counsel has also referred to the deposition given by PW-3, who is the brother of the deceased. Thereafter, it has been mainly contended that the occurrence in question took place in presence of all the eye-witnesses and the informant, PW-4, has specifically given the names of the assailants in the fardbeyan which was given by him before the concerned police authorities. It is further submitted that all the eye-witnesses have specifically given the names of the accused/ assailants and the manner in which the occurrence took place. It is also submitted that the medical evidence also supports the version of the prosecution and the eye-witnesses, despite which the trial court has recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the private-respondents relying upon the faulty investigation made by the investigating agency. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that when there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question and they have supported the case of the prosecution, coupled with the fact that the medical evidence also supports the version of the eye-witnesses, the trial court ought to have convicted the respondents/accused. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside and the present appeal be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suresh Rai & Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC 84, Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 3 SCC 654, Ram Avtar Rai & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1985) 2 SCC 61 and Baso Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 13 SCC 65.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents/original accused has vehemently opposed the present appeal filed by the informant. Learned counsel would mainly contend that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order of acquittal. Learned counsel has also referred to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter contended that the so-called eye-witnesses are, in fact, projected as eye-witnesses and, in fact, they were not present at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the version of the so-called eye-witnesses. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition given by the PW-6, the doctor who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, learned counsel for the private-r