The prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused, as inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt.

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 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 2023, arising out of Benipatti P.S. Case No. 93 of 2023, whereby Respondent No. 2 has been acquitted from the charge of Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons, namely, Amit Kumar, Arun Kumar Safi, Sita Saran Yadav, Dukhi Yadav, Bhima @ Vijay Kumar Mahto used to run illegal liquor business in the village of the informant. One Pradeep Kumar who was the son of the informant used to object to the illegal business done by the accused persons. However, from several days before the alleged occurrence, Pradeep Kumar developed a friendship with the accused persons, irrespective of the warnings given by the informant. On 07.05.2023, around 10:00 PM, all the five accused persons named above came to the house of the informant on two motorcycles, and called her son to go to the Barati of the son of Kishan Ram. The son of the informant went to the Barati, and he sat along with Amit and Arun Safi on a motorcycle. On the very next morning, the informant saw that every person had returned from Barati except her son Pradeep and she called on his Mobile No. 7070783883, which was switched off. Thereafter, she enquired about her son from the neighbouring people and also from Amit and Arun Safi, but they said that they had no knowledge about Pradeep. Thereafter, she heard that a dead body of an unknown person has been found by the police, and she rushed to Benipatti Police Station. The informant was shown the photograph of the deceased person, and she identified that the photograph was of her son Pradeep. Then informant having strong suspicion that her son was killed by Amit Kumar, Arun Kumar Safi, Sita Saran Yadav, Dukhi Yadav and Bhima @ Vijay Kumar Mahto, registered an F.I.R. against all the accused persons.

3. On the basis of the application of the informant, Benipatti P.S. Case No. 93 of 2023 was instituted under Sections 302, 201 and 120B/34 of the I.P.C. and investigation was carried out by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent No. 2 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the respondent No. 2, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses i.e. PW1 Manoj Yadav, PW 2 Umesh Yadav, PW3 Dr. Kunal Ahand, PW4 Sunita Devi, PW5 Lalu Kumar Yadav, PW6 Bipin Kumar Yadav, PW7 Praveen Kumar, PW8 Sitaram Prasad and PW9 Suraj Kumar. The prosecution has also produced certain documents which were marked as Exhibits, i.e., Signature of Manoj Yadav on the seizure list, Postmortem report, Seizure list of mobile phone of deceased, Endorsement over the typed application, Formal FIR, Seizure list of Apache Motorcycle, and the chargesheet. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned trial court acquitted the accused.

5. The learned trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the entire prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence was not linked together in a manner sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, t