The court reaffirmed that the prosecution's failure to establish credible evidence and the presence of contradictions among witnesses warrants the acquittal of the accused under the principle of benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, II, Nawada by which the respondent nos. 2 to 4 who were facing trial for the charges under Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in Sessions Trial No. 01/2021 arising out of Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 192 of 2020 have been acquitted.

Prosecution Story

3. As per the prosecution case, Mina Devi (PW-4) submitted a written report before the concerned police officer that on 25.08.2020 at 08:00 A.M. (morning), her elder son Jitendra was returning to his village from Nardiganj market after buying cement. When he reached near the Bajrangabali temple, the co-villagers Mithilesh Chaudhary, Gorelal Chaudhary, Anil Chaudhary, Girani Chaudhary, Pradeep Chaudhary, Raushan Chaudhary, Ratan Chaudhary, Santosh Chaudhary and Gorelal Chaudhary assaulted her son with sword. Girani Chaudhary, Anil Chaudhary and Bhagirath Chaudhary assaulted her son with stick and iron rod. Her son was crying to save himself when she, her husband and one Mahendra Chaudhary came after hearing the cry of her son, they saw the incident with their own eyes but since the accused persons were in huge number, so out of fear the informant could not save her son.

Brief Facts of the Case

4. On the basis of the allegations contained in the written report, Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 192 of 2020 was registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The investigating agency submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons whereupon cognizance was taken under the aforementioned Sections and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

5. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which were explained to them. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution Witnesses

6. On behalf of the prosecution, altogether eight witnesses were examined. PW-1 is Mahendra Chaudhary who claimed to be an eye witness. PW-2 is Madan Chaudhary and PW-3 is Ravindra Chaudhary and both of them have claimed themselves eye witnesses to the occurrence. Mina Devi (PW-4) is the mother of the deceased and she is informant of the case. She has stated that the occurrence was seen by her when she had gone to perform puja in the temple. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are the doctors who conducted autopsy on the dead body. PW-8 is Mohan Kumar who is the Investigating Officer of the case. In addition to the ocular evidences, the prosecution also proved the postmortem report (Exhibit P03/PW-5), written statement (Exhibit P01/PW-3), endorsement on FIR (Exhibit P1/1/PW-8) and formal FIR (Exhibit P4/PW-8).

7. After appreciation of the evidences available on the record, the learned trial court recorded that there are material lacuna in the story which is being propounded by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has found that though the prosecution witnesses have tried to project themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence but in course of their cross-examination, they have made completely inconsistent and sometimes contradictory statements. The learned trial court has recorded that the type of injuries described by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 does not match with the detail of the injury mentioned in the postmortem report.

8. Further, the learned trial court has found that the prosecution has failed to produce a single independent witness who could have thrown proper light upon the incident. It has been found that all the prosecution witnesses are related and interested witnesses. The prosecution witnesses are also inimical inasmuch as the learned trial court has found that PW-4 Mina Devi has stated in her examination-in-chief in paragraph ‘4’ that prior to this incident, the deceased Jitendra had a dispute going on wi