An appellate court may reappraise evidence in acquittal appeals but maintains double presumption of innocence, requiring clear support for findings before altering trial court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The informant has preferred the present appeal under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS ) against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.01.2025 passed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XVI^th, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2024 (arising out of Paraiya P.S. Case No. 279 of 2023), whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent No. 2 of all the charges levelled against him.

2. The prosecution case, in a nut shell, is as under:-

2.1. The informant Basanti Devi, W/o-Late Raghu Yadav recorded her fardbeyan before Paraiya P.S. stating that on 19.07.2023 at about 08:00 p.m. she, her daughter-in-law, namely Arpan Devi, and husband Raghu Yadav were going to their new house from the old one. When they reached near the house of Bacchu Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav, Bacchu Yadav came there, threatened them and started assaulting them. He slapped her husband Raghu Yadav and started pressing his neck due to which blood started oozing out from the nose and mouth of her husband. Her husband succumbed to the injuries after sometime.

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. 156 of 2024.

4. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined eight witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Basanti Devi, P.W. 2 Arpan Devi, P.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Yadav, P.W. 4 Ramshila Devi, P.W. 5 Dhaneshar Yadav, P.W. 6 Dr. Sarvesh Kumar, P.W. 7 Abhishek Kumar and P.W. 8 Ajay Kumar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/informant mainly contended that, in the present case, the informant is the eye-witness to the occurrence in question. She has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 1. It is contended that P.W. 1 has specifically deposed before the trial court that accused Bacchu Yadav came on the road and started assaulting her husband Raghu Yadav (deceased). The accused caught hold of Raghu Yadav and assaulted him repeatedly, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, Bacchu Yadav started assaulting the deceased with kicks and fists on his face and nose due to which blood started oozing out of his mouth and nose. It is further submitted that because of the assault made by the accused, the deceased sustained injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. It is further submitted that P.W. 2 Arpan Devi has also supported the manner of occurrence as narrated by P.W. 1. In fact, P.W. 2 has specifically deposed that she could identify the accused in the light of electric bulb. Learned counsel has also referred the deposition given by P.W. 8 Ajay Kumar. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the trial court has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed and thereby the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same. It is also contended that till date the State has not preferred any Government/Acquittal Appeal against the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court.

7. We have recon