The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of independent corroboration led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as also Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

2. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the informant-appellant for setting aside the judgment dated 16.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2021 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 368 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 325, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Prosecution Case

3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.11.2020 at about 07:00 AM, the son of the informant, namely, Rajeev Kumar Yadav went to Pratap Nagar Jhakran Rajni G.P. on motorbike to bring labourers for cultivating wheat. The informant alleged that she also went behind her son but in the meantime, due to previous enmity, Nawal Kishor Yadav, Sushil Kumar Yadav, Mandhir Yadav @ Sanjeev Yadav, Shashinath Yadav, Bhuto Yadav, Prabhash Yadav, Deep Narayan Yadav and Mukesh Yadav all stopped his motorbike and asked him to come down. Further on the order of Sashi Nath Yadav, accused Nawal Kishore Yadav, Sanjeev Yadav, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Deep Narayan Yadav started firing on her son due to which he sustained two bullet injuries on both of his legs and also sustained head injury. When the informant raised alarm and the villagers also heard the sound of firing, they came there and saw the occurrence. The informant further alleges that at some distance, her husband was also present there who came there and took her injured son to Murliganj P.H.C. from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Madhepura for better treatment. The informant further alleges that from the place of occurrence, the motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 43B 8049, mobile no. 9667643188 and purse were also taken away by the accused persons.

4. On the basis of the written statement of the informant, Murliganj P.S. Case No. 368 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon investigation, a chargesheet bearing no. 63/2021 dated 30.03.2021 was submitted in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-II, Madhepura against four accused persons, namely, Deepnarayan Yadav, Shashinath Yadav, Bhuto Yadav and Sushil Kumar Yadav for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 325, 326/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the basis of this chargesheet, learned A.C.J.M.-II, Madhepura took cognizance and summoned the above-named accused persons on 01.04.2021. On finding that the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the records were committed to the Court of Sessions on 29.09.2021. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited three documents to prove its case. The list of the prosecution witnesses and documents exhibits on behalf of the prosecution are mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-

List of Prosecution Witnesses

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution

6. Learned trial