The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to establish a clear circumstantial chain of evidence, reinforcing the principle that acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the learned trial court’s records.

2. The present appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the appellant for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 21.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5th, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Session Trial No. 231 of 2005/CIS No. 1719 of 2016 (Arising out of Sugauli P.S. Case No. 33 of 2004) registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has been pleased to acquit the two accused, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely Krishna Mishra and Munna Pandey who were facing trial for murder of one Vicky.

Prosecution Case

3. The police case was registered on the basis of an information furnished by the local Chowkidar Jhunjhun Raut (P.W. 11) who made his fardbeyan before police that on 15.03.2004 he had found a dead body on a pakki road at a distance of 200 yards East from Dhangawan Pokhra. According to the informant (P.W.11), the dead body was found thrown on the road. P.W. 11 had noticed several injuries on the body of the deceased but the identity of the deceased was not established till the time of recording of the fardbeyan of P.W. 11.

4. It appears that after investigation police submitted a charge-sheet no. 118 dated 05.09.2004 against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari took cognizance of the offences on 05.09.2004 and after appearance of the accused, finding that the offences are triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate submitted the records to the Court of Sessions on 14.03.2005, thereafter Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2005 was registered.

5. The accused persons were explained the charges, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC. These were explained in Hindi to the accused persons and as the accused persons pleaded not guilty, the trial began.

6. In the trial Court, prosecution examined altogether twelve witnesses and marked some documentary evidences as exhibits. The list of witnesses and the description of the exhibits are fully detailed hereinbelow in a tabular form :-

List of Prosecution Witnesses

List of Documents Exhibited on behalf of Prosecution

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

7. The learned Trial Court analysed the evidences on the record and found that in this case only two circumstantial evidences have been brought on the record. The first circumstantial evidence was that the accused persons had given threat to the prosecution side just one week before the date of the killing of the deceased because of a love affair said to have developed between the deceased and daughter of one of the accused. The second circumstantial evidence as has been noticed by the learned trial Court is tha