The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)

Heard Md. Ziaul Quamar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section Section 372 (proviso) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal has been filed by the informant against judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2024 rendered by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge – II, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2017 arising out of Jadia P.S. Case No. 118 of 2014, whereby the present private respondents or respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 302 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-informant, at the outset, submitted that though there are eye-witnesses to the incident in question, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court did not properly appreciate the said depositions given by the eye-witnesss and passed impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned counsel has supplied the copies of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the other relevant documents. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly referred the fardbeyan given by the son of the deceased who is P.W.5. It is submitted that in the said fardbeyan, the informant has narrated the manner in which the incident took place and role played by the present respondents-accused. It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with sticks and lathi and started beating the father as well as uncle of the informant and in the said incident, the uncle of the informant sustained injuries and father of the informant sustained injury on his head, as a result of which both the injured were immediately taken to the hospital. Thereafter, they were referred to Darbhanga. However, the father of the informant succumbed to the injury on the way and thereafter the informant returned with the dead body of his father and gave his fardbeyan before the police. Learned counsel further submits that there are eyewitnesses to the incident in question and, in fact, P.W.1 who is uncle of the informant and the brother of the deceased and is the injured eye-witness has supported the case of the informant despite which the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel would further submit that P.W.7 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor has specifically deposed that deceased sustained injury on his head as a result of which he died. The said injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the medical evidence also supports the version of the eye-witnesses. However, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the aforesaid medical evidence led by the prosecution and passed impugned judgment and order.

4. Learned counsel further submits that separate trial was conducted against four other co-accused and in the said case also the concerned trial Court acquitted the concerned accused against which the appellant has preferred separate appeal.

5. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal calls for interference and is fit to be set aside.

6. Learned APP has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. However, looking to the facts of the present case, this Court may pass appropriate order. Learned APP has further submitted that till date the State has not filed any acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment rendered by the concerned trial Court.

7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have also perused the materials placed on record including the fardbeyan as well as depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced by