In criminal appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or devoid of substantial evidence, adhering to the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.213 of 2004 arising out of Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of 2003, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 148, 307/149, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 have also been acquitted from the charge of Sections 436/34 & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Vide order dated 20.07.2024, trial court records was called for, which was received on 14.08.2024.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.12.2003, at about 07:30 A.M., the accused persons, namely, Ram Pravesh Singh armed with a gun, Manoj Sharma, Pinku Sharma, Narsingh Sharma, Arvind Sharma & Niranjan Sharma, all with lathi, came at the Dalan of Ram Narayan Sharma (informant). Rampravesh Sharma pointed the gun at the informant’s chest and threatened him to put his signature on two stamp papers, due to fear the informant put his signature on two stamp papers and two blank papers also. Thereafter, all the accused persons went from there. It is further alleged that when the informant narrated the occurrence to his wife (Ramjari Devi) and son (Upendra), his son went to the accused persons and told them to return all the signed papers, upon which, the accused persons assaulted him with fist and legs and twisted his neck. On hulla, Ramjari Devi came to save him but she was also assaulted by the accused Manoj Sharma with lathi hitting her hand and arm also. Further, Ram Pravesh Sharma ordered the other accused perons to set the house of the informant on fire with his family members and tied a rope around the neck of Ramjari Devi and dragged her. Arvind and Manoj Sharma took out the matchsticks from their pockets and set the house on fire. On hulla, some villagers came to the place of occurrence and saved the informant’s family members, and all accused persons fled away from there.

4. On the basis of written complaint of the informant, Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of 2003 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 323, 354, 436, 307, 348 & 386 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos.2 to 7 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 17 witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Ramjari Devi, PW-2 Upendra Sharma, PW-3 Lakhan Yadav, PW-4 Urmila Devi, PW- 5 Ram Narayan Sharma, PW-6 Dr. Sajjan Kumar Mishra, PW-7 Surendra Ram, PW-8 Surendra Prasad Singh, PW-9, Baliram Ram, PW-10 Birendra Ram, PW-11 Sukhdeo Ram, PW-12 Lakhan Ram, PW-13 Nagendra Singh, PW-14 Dinesh Sharma, PW-15 Harihar Ram, PW-16 Bhola Prasad and PW-17 Phekan Ram. The prosecution has also produced certain exhibits (Fardbeyan, Injury report of Ramjari Devi, Injury report of Ramjari Devi, Injury report of Upendra Sharma, Injury report of Upendra Sharma, Formal FIR of Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of 2003, Endorsement on fardbeyan Charge-sheet, Supplementary charge-sheet, Charge-sheet no.31 of 2003 dated 30.05.2003 in connection with Pauthu P.S. Case No.114 of 2003, Certified copy of order/judgment passed in Gr. 1558 of 2003, Tr. 1392 of 2014). The defence has also produced certain exhibits (Sale deed by Pundeo Path