The presumption of innocence is reinforced in cases of acquittal, and appellate courts may only overturn acquittals upon finding that guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the trial court records.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (informant) under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment and order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Araria (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 1196 of 2012 arising out of Araria (Bairgachhi) P.S. Case No. 634 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondent nos. 2 to 3 from the charges under Sections 341 , 324, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘ IPC ’).

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that one Md. Isa (PW-8) gave fardbeyan at Bairgachhi O.P. on 21.12.2011 at 7 PM in emergency ward Sadar Hospital, Purnea stating therein that on 19.12.2011 at about 3 PM his wife Sahida Parween and his son were in his house. Suddenly, respondent nos. 2 and 3 and co- accused Biwi Kausari entered in the house and took the key of the almirah, on protest by his wife, the respondent no. 2 caught hold of his wife on farsa point and respondent no. 3 took away golden ornament and cash of Rs. 15,000/- and handed over the same to his wife Biwi Kaushari. It is further alleged that in the meantime, informant’s son, namely, Mehtab Alam called the informant on mobile, informant came there on bike from his grocery shop. When he arrived at his house, respondent no. 2 assaulted on his head by means of farsa with intention to kill him on the order of respondent no. 3 as a result of which, he sustained head injury. Villagers came there and took the informant to Sadar Hospital, Araria.

4. On the basis of above fardbeyan, the FIR was registered under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 448, 354, 380, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘ IPC ’).

5. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 307, 504 and 34 of IPC . Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

6. Charges were explained to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Hindi to which they denied and claimed to be tried, accordingly, charges against them for the offences under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 307, 504 and 34 of the IPC were framed.

7. In this case, prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses and has also exhibited certain documentary evidences which are being provided hereunder for ready reference:-

List of Prosecution Witnesses

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution

8. After the evidence of prosecution, statement of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein they denied the evidence of prosecution and pleaded innocence.

Findings of the learned trial Court.

9. Learned trial court has held that PW-8 is the inf