The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Apurva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Addl.P.P. for the State as also perused the trial court records.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 17.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and where under the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Sessions Court, Barh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 7 of the charges under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Sessions Trial No.478 of 2009/908 of 2009, G.R. No.713 of 2008 arising out of Ghoshwari P.S. Case No.37 of 2008.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Ramdeo Mahto who has been examined as PW-1 in the present case. In his fardbeyan said to have been recorded by S.I. Sona Prasad Singh, S.H.O. of Ghoswari Police Station, Patna on 12.06.2008 at 17.00 hrs, the informant has stated that on 12.06.2008 at about 4.00 PM when he was returning his home, he heard a hulla and also heard that Chintu had opened fire. On enquiry from his family members, he came to know that Chintu Mahto and Papul Mahto were saying that they had been abused by Pradeep. In the meanwhile, Vishnudeo Pandit came and said that Pramod Mahto was calling him. Informant reached the house of Pramod Mahto and saw that Lalu Mahto, Papul Mahto and Chintu Mahto were present there with pistol in their hand. Bhushan Mahto, Ashwini Mahto and Pramod Mahto were also present. On seeing the informant, both the brothers Chintu and Papul Mahto started abusing him. In the meantime the son of the informant also came there. On seeing the seriousness of the situation, when the informant started to push his son and started moving towards his house then Bhushan Mahto, Aswhwini Mahto and Pramod Mahto instigated the other accused persons to kill them. The informant further alleged that Lalu Mahto fired one shot which hit the informant’s son due to which he fell down and died on the spot.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ramdeo Mahto (PW-1), the S.H.O., Ghoswari P.S. registered Ghoswari P.S. Case No.37 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008 under Sections 302 /34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. After completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’) of the case submitted a charge- sheet against five accused persons namely, Chintu Mahto, Papul Mahto, Lallu Mahto, Bhushan Mahto and Pramod Mahto under Sections 302 /34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide charge- sheet no.88/08 dated 11.09.2008 and against one Ashwani separate charge-sheet no.01/09 dated 09.01.2009 has been submitted by the I.O. The learned A.C.J.M.-Barh vide his order dated 15.09.2008 took cognizance of the offences under /34 and of the Arms Act against five accused persons namely, Chintu Mahto, Papul Mahto, Lallu Mahto, Bhushan Mahto and Pramod Mahto and on 07.02.2009 the learned Magistrate also took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 /34 and of the Arms Act. Thereafter, having found the case triable by court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions and the case was registered as Session Trial NO.478 of 2009/908 of 2009.

6. The accused persons were explained the charges, they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case. The list of witnesses and the documents exhi