The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 07.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bagaha, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015 arising out of Simra P.S. Case No. 03 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons.

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of the uncle of the deceased who has been examined as PW-13 in course of trial. According to the informant, his nephew Rajan Yadav (since deceased) aged about 23-24 years had gone to the neighbouring village Semarahani with the co-villager boys to watch a dance. He had gone there in the night of 16.01.2013 but did not return in the morning. It is stated that when the informant had gone in connection with the irrigation work of his field to village- Sawna, there he got an information that the dead body of his nephew has been found thrown in the Sareh which is east to the Semarahani village. On receipt of the information, he went to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of his nephew. The informant disclosed that he is not aware as to with whom the deceased had gone. He also stated that he did not know who murdered his nephew. The informant stated that on looking at the dead body, it appears that somebody has killed his nephew by throttling him.

4. On the basis of the fardebyan of the informant, namely, Suresh Yadav (PW-13), Simra P.S. Case No. 3 of 2013 was registered under Section 302 IPC on 17.01.2013 against unknown persons. After investigation, the I.O. (PW-15) submitted a chargesheet. Four accused persons were chargesheeted who faced the trial for the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.

5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 3 documentary evidences. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the documents brought in evidence are being provided hereunder for a ready reference:-

List of Prosecution Witnesses

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

6. The learned trial court analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In course of trial, the informant who deposed as PW-13 has stated in paragraph ‘14’ of his deposition that he had received information with regard to the occurrence from Bachchi Devi (mother of the deceased). He had not seen the occurrence and in paragraph ‘6’ of his deposition, he has stated that in his fardebyan, he had not disclosed the name of any accused. Bachchi Devi who is mother of the deceased has been examined in this case as PW-10. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the deceased had gone to watch the dance with Manoj, Lambu and Chhote in village Semrauli. Bhagirathi had made a telephone call to Rajan and took him to watch the dance whereafter Rajan did not return. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had given the name of the accused persons on the basis of suspicion and those who had come to call the deceased for watching the dance are not involved in this occurrence. Her son had no enmity with anyone.

7. The learned