Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.—Vide order dated 19-09-2023, name of respondent no. 6 (Shiv Bachan Rai) has been deleted as he has died.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 2012, arising out of Parsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2009, whereby the concerned Trial Court has acquitted Respondent No. 2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Avinash Ray and Mr. Vinod Bihari Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

4. The prosecution story, in short, is that the present appellant filed Parsa P.S. Case no. 23 of 2009 by recording his fardbeyan before the Police for the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 26.04.2009, at about 05:30 PM when his brother went to defecate in the southern side of the house and did not came back till 08:30 PM, they started searching him and during the search, they heard a commotion that a dead body has been found in the field of Sitaram Singh, where the appellant and his family members went and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. Accordingly, appellant alleged that accused persons, namely, (i) Sikander Rai, ii) Arjun Rai, iii) Naresh Rai and iv) Yogendra Rai have murdered his brother Pawan Kumar (deceased) due to previous enmity.

5. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started the investigation and upon completion of investigation, submitted final form against the accused persons on 30.01.2011, stating the case to be not true to the concerned Magistrate Court. Prior to submission of final form by Investigating Officer, a protest petition was filed by the appellant (informant) before the CJM, Saran at Chapra on 23.05.2009, in which 5 persons were made accused including (i) Sikander Rai, (ii) Arjun Rai, (iii) Naresh Rai, (iv) Yogendra Rai and (v) Shiv Bachan Rai, stating that when the brother of appellant did not come back, a search was made and during the course of the search, appellant found that the accused persons killing his brother and further the protest petition was treated as complaint and numbered as Complaint Case No. C1253 of 2011, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, witnesses were examined, who supported the case of the prosecution and learned CJM took cognizance under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned CJM committed the same to the Sessions Court, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 576 of 2012.

6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses including the informant, namely, PW-1 Lal Babu Rai, PW-2 Asha Devi (Wife of the deceased), PW-3 Munna Rai (Brother of the deceased), PW-4 Badamiya Devi (Mother of the deceased), PW-5 Bajinath Rai (Father of the deceased), PW-6 Jitendra Rai, PW-7 Dr. Alok Bihari Sharan and PW-8 Gopal Rai (Informant) and documentary evidences exhibited as Exhibit-1 Inquest report, Exhibit-2 Postmortem Report, Exhibit-3 Fardbeyan and Exhibit-3/1 Protest Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/informant submits that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law as well as on facts. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are ample materials available on the record to establish the case of prosecution and to prove the guilt of respondents No. 2 to 5. There is no contradiction in the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and time of occurrence and involvement of respondents and, as such, the acquittal of the respondents is based on erroneous and extraneous consideration and not based on the m