In acquittal appeals, the prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with a double presumption in favor of the accused, making it difficult to overturn a trial court's acquittal.

GUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

The State has preferred Govt. Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1999 under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the judgment dated 27.07.1999 passed by the court of learned A.D.J.-XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 319/96, arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case No.258/95 whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted both the accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, of all the charges levelled against them.

2. Prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan dated 03.12.1995 recorded at 20:00 hours given by Deepak Kumar @ Dipu in P.M.C.H. Emergency Ward is that on 03.12.1995 at 19:00 hours while he was lying on his bed in the room inside his house and his mother Raj Mahal Devi was standing there, three young miscreants, aged about 25 years each, came inside the room and one of them, who was having a revolver in his hand, fired upon his mother who fell down injured. When the informant stood up, one of the accused, who was having a sickle (Hansua) in his hand, gave blow on the back portion of his neck and at right hand causing injuries on his neck and right hand. The three accused persons fled away after committing the crime. On hearing the sound of firing, the students, who were residing in his house on rent, and neighbourers came there and took the informant and his mother to P.M.C.H. on a tempo and, in course of treatment, Raj Mahal Devi died.

3. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 319/96.

4. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW-1, Suresh Yadav, PW-2, Maheshwari Devi, PW-3, Shyam Babu Yadav, PW-4, Deepak Kumar, PW-5, Dr. Vinay Kumar, PW-6, Dr. Vishnu Deo Prasad and PW-7, R.N. Pandey. Defence has also examined one witness, namely Vimal Kumar. The Court has also examined three witnesses, namely, CW-1, Suresh Yadav, CW-2, Deepak Kumar and CW-3, Maheshwari Devi.

5. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the appellant/State and Ms. Renuka Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.

6. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State would mainly submit that there are eye- witnesses to the incident in question who have supported the case of the prosecution, despite which the Trial Court has discarded their deposition. It is contended that though the informant, Deepak Kumar lodged the FIR against unknown persons and did not disclose the names of the assailants while giving fardbeyan, he had given the explanation for not giving the names of the assailants to the police while giving his fardbeyan. It is submitted that the brother of the accused, i.e., Gauri Shankar Yadav, while carrying the injured to the hospital in tempo had given threat to the informant and, therefore, he did not disclose the names of the assailants at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that even PW-1 and PW-2 have also supported the case of the prosecution. Statements of the said witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code before the concerned Magistrate. Learned APP further submits that the medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution and, in fact, informant, PW-4, is an injured eye- witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the