Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal as per criminal law standards.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Bharat Prasad, Naresh Prasad @ Ram Naresh Prasad, Chhotak Prasad and Pramod Prasad have died during the pendency of the appeal. So, the appeal against them stands abated under the provision of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 24.06.2024 and 14.11.2024, respectively.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Ara, Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1999 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’). The appellant namely Parsuram Prasad has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Rest of the appellants namely Sunil Prasad and Anil Prasad have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the informant, namely Jitendra Yadav (PW-4) recorded his statement at Bihiyan Police Station on 25.10.1995 at about 1:25 PM is that on 24.10.1995 at about 4.00 PM, wrestling was going on near Kali Temple in Village Amiya and in which the deceased Vishnudeo Yadav (nephew of the informant) had some altercation with Baijnath Prasad (Son of Manjee Prasad), a co-villager and due to which Bharat Prasad, Naresh Prasad, Parsuram Prasad, all co-villagers of the informant (PW-4) arrived there after some time. According to the informant (PW-4), due to old enmity accused started assaulting the deceased nephew of the informant with Lathi and bricks bats. Upon information when the informant went to rescue the deceased nephew appellant Bharat Prasad assaulted him with Lathi on his head as a result of which he became injured and fell down. Accused are alleged to have assaulted the deceased nephew with Lathi and bricks after surrounding him and as a result thereof he became unconscious on the spot itself. Sheo Govind Yadav (not examined), Anant Yadav (not examined) and others are said to have arrived, who had witnessed the alleged occurrence and rescued the prosecution party. It is also alleged that the informant (PW-4) brought his deceased Nephew to Ara Hospital for treatment, from where the deceased is said to have been taken to Patna on the advice of the Doctor at Ara. It is further alleged that the deceased was unconscious and was admitted in Government Hospital, Patna where he was being treated. The Informant (PW-4) stated that there after he came to the Police station and gave his statement in this regard.

5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant (PW-4), Bihiyan P.S. Case No. 120 of 1995 was registered on 25.10.1995 at about 1:25 PM, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC