The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, particularly when witness accounts are contradictory.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the informant for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in connection with Sessions Trial No.490 of 2003 arising out of Thakraha P.S. Case No. 74 of 2001.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Amar Tiwary who has been examined as PW-6 in the present case. In his fardbeyan, recorded by S.I. V.K. Jha, O/C, Thakraha, District-West Champaran at Thakraha Police Station on 13.11.2001 at 23.30 hrs., the informant has stated that on 13.11.2001 at about 7.00 PM, Arjun Thakur (R-2) had come to the house of his uncle Hareram Tiwary (the deceased) for taking some loan, he had taken dinner in the house of his uncle and had left from there at about 8.00 PM for his house. At about 9.15 PM, the informant got an information from someone that his uncle Hareram Tiwary has been stabbed near the house of Arjun Thakur whereafter the informant went there and some other people from his Tola also went to Arjun Thakur. The informant further alleged that his uncle Hareram Tiwary was lying dead on the earth and at the place of occurrence mother of Arjun Thakur and the neighbours told him that at about 9.00 PM Hareram Tiwary (the deceased) had a hot exchange of words with Suran Gupta and both of them had become physical. It is alleged that mother of Suran had caught hold of both the testicles of Hareram Tiwary and pulled them, Suran took out a knife and gave repeated blow upon the head, neck, stomach and thigh etc. of the deceased. The informant alleged that after the occurrence, Arjun Thakur was absconding. He has also stated that his uncle had no prior enmity with anyone. According to the informant, his uncle was murdered because of the quarrel which had taken place at the relevant time. He raised a suspicion against Awadhesh Thakur as according to him, Awadhesh Thakur had a quarrel with his uncle on the same day in the evening on some issues.

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant Amar Tiwary (PW-6), the O/C, Thakraha P.S. registered Thakraha P.S. Case No.74 of 2001 dated 13.11.2001 under Section 302/34 IPC.

5. After completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer (the I.O.) of the case submitted a charge- sheet against the FIR named accused vide charge-sheet no. 08/2022 dated 14.02.2022 under Section 302/34 IPC. The learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha vide his order dated 18.02.2002 took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC against respondent nos. 2 and 3. Vide order dated 09.10.2002 supplementary charge-sheet no.62/2002 dated 07.10.2002 has been submitted against respondent no.4 on the basis of which, learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 against him. Vide order dated 03.12.2003, case was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was registered as S.T. No.490 of 2003.

6. The charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the charges were framed against all the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses a