IMPORTANT POINT
The principles governing appeals against acquittal emphasize the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the appellate court exercising restraint in overturning acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) :

The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife of the deceased, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Code) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.06.2023 rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, IXth, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2020 (Registration No. 116 of 2020) arising out of Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 66 of 2019, whereby, the concerned Trial Court has acquitted the private respondents/accused from the charges levelled against them, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

2. The prosecution case, in short, is based on the fardbeyan given by the Informant/Rohit Kumar Singh dated 22.05.2019 at about 06.30 A.M. at Sadar Hospital, Chapra stating therein that on 21.05.2019 at about 8.30 P.M. accused Pawan Singh, son of Prithvi Singh, Mithun Pratap Singh @ Katiman Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of late Dharmnath Singh, all three belongings to the village Naziba, in a conspiracy, came to his house and called his cousin brother Sanjeev Kumar Singh. After some time, his uncle Jitendra Singh @ Jitu Singh came when then he told his uncle that the aforesaid three persons brought his brother. They moved towards Manipali More in search of his brother where he saw that Chandan Singh, Pintu Singh assaulted by Farsa with an intention to kill him due to which Sanjeev Kumar Singh sustained serious injury. When his uncle Jitendra Singh and brother Ravi Kumar Singh tried to save him, Ajeet Singh and Uma Shankar Tiwari @ Bhuar of Village Dhawani instigated the accused persons to kill him without any loss of time. Thereafter, Pawan Singh assaulted with Farsa and Mithun Pratap Singh by iron rod due to which his uncle sustained injury on his forehead and started bleeding and his uncle died at the place of occurrence. When his brother and the Informant tried to save him, they injured them. On hulla, Rajesh Singh @ Guddu reached there and saw the occurrence. 4-5 unknown persons were there. The Informant identified all the accused persons as there was electricity. All the injured persons brought to the Sadar Hospital, Chapra for their treatment. His brother was referred to Patna for his better treatment. The fight happened due to demand of dues in a conspired way.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses, also collected the documentary evidences and, thereafter, filed the charge-sheet against the private respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2020.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned order whereby the present private respondents/accused persons have been acquitted against which the appellant/wife of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Harsh Anuj, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has separately supplied copy of the depositions and the relevant materiel produced before the Trial Court. Learned counsel referred the deposition of the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses and, thereafter, submitted that in the present case, there are more than four injured witnesses who sustained