IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence remains paramount in criminal proceedings, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) by the appellant-original informant against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.05.2023 rendered by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya in G.R. No. 1220 of 2012, SC/ST Trial No. 101 of 2015 arising out of Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) as well as Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby the present prime respondents have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

2. Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned advocate for the appellant-informant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:

One Sahdev Manjhi gave his fardbeyan that the marriage of his daughter Futuk was solemnized 20 years back with Badhan Manjhi of village-Bumuuar. Futuk has two sons and three daughters. Her eldest daughter aged about 15 years used to study at Bodhgaya. Two sons and daughters used to live with Futuk in Bamuwar. On 06.10.2012 at about 11 pm, Subedar entered in the house of his daughter and set his daughter Futukwa at fire by pouring kerosene and run away. When his daughter raised alarm, his natni namely, Arti Kumari started shouting. Subedar again came and extinguished the fire and went away. After sometime, Nephews of Subedar namely, Yogesh and Mukesh came and took her at the doors of Subedar. Thereafter, Subedar took Futuk to ANMCH, Gaya for treatment on his vehicles. He further stated that he was informed by his natni on telephone. His natni is the eye witness of the incident. He visited ANMCH, Gaya. On 07.10.2012 at about 11 am his daughter Futuk and Natni told him the whole incident and in the meanwhile his daughter died in the course of treatment. He claimed that his daughter Futuk was set at fire pouring kerosene by Subedar owing to old enmity due to which his daughter Futuk died.

4. After the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded, the formal FIR came to be registered before the concerned police station and the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation, during the course of which, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the documentary evidence. After the investigation was concluded, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the respondents- accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC) as well as Section 3(1)(v) of the Act.

5. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined eleven prosecution witnesses, whereas the defence had examined two witnesses.

6. The further statement of the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted the private respondents herein from the charges levelled against them. Against which, the appellant-informant has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly assailed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court on the ground that PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased, is the eyewitness to the occurrence and though she has supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court has not properly considered her deposition and thereby passed the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that other prosecution witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution, despite which, the Trial Court has recorded the order of acquittal. Learned advocate for the appellant, at this stage, has referred to the deposition given by PW-8 Dr. P.N. Sinha, who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. It is pointed out that the deceased sustained