An appellate court must maintain double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases and should not overturn unless clear errors are present in trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.)

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant/informant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.2024 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 569/2017 arising out of Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 284 of 2016 whereby the present respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

3. Brief facts of prosecution case, as appears from written report of the informant/appellant, is that on 06.08.2016 at 7:30 P.M. when he reached near his old house from his new house, which was near the police camp, co- villagers Virchandra Rai, Shambhu Rai, Mithilesh Rai, Avishek Kumar @ Raja Kumar and five unknown persons armed with traditional weapons started talking themselves to kill him, thereafter, Virchandra Rai gave a sickle blow upon his left foot, due to which he got injured and fell down. Shambhu Rai, who was armed with lathi, started assaulting him, due to which, the hand and leg of the informant/appellant got fractured. When the son and wife of the informant tried to save the informant/appellant, Virchandra Rai started assaulting them by lathi. The informant further stated that co- accused Mithilesh Rai, who was armed with pistol, entered in his house and when the daughter-in-law of informant opposed, then, another unknown person slammed her by holding her hair, and taken away her mangalsutra and chain from her neck. The aforesaid accused persons also taken away Rs. 5000/- from his son Arvind Kumar. When neighbours gathered there, all the accused persons fled away. The informant/informant further stated that the reason behind the occurrence is to demand the extortion money because the electric tower was installed in the land of the informant/appellant.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the informant/appellant, Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 284 of 2016 was registered for the offence under Sections 34 1, 323, 325, 308, 354, 379, 504, 448/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the four named persons and five unknown co-accused persons. Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet No. 340/2016 dated 31.08.2016 under Section 34 1, 323, 324, 325, 308, 504, 447 & 342 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 18.10.2016 under the aforesaid sections of the I.P.C.

5. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined eight (8) witnesses. They are PW-1 Narayan Bhagal; PW-2 Panchu Rai (the informant); PW-3 Ajay Rai; PW-4 Indu Devi; PW-5 Chunnu Singh @ Ashutosh Kumar; PW-6 Amita Devi; PW-7 Dr. Pranay Punj and PW-8 Kamesh Pd. Singh, Investigating Officer.

6. The statement of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code, where all of them denied the evidences surfaced against them and claimed their complete innocence and false implication. After the conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused through impugned judgment from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved, with aforesaid order of acquittal, appellant/informant preferred the present appeal.

7. Hence, the present appeal.

8. The main submissions, which raised challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/informant is that learned trial court completely overlooked the testimony of three injured witnesses, where the first injured is