Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This is an appeal against acquittal.

2. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. We have also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. Appellant is the informant. He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 350 (K-G) of 2009 acquitting the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 from the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC.

4. Leave to file appeal was granted on 17.09.2013 whereafter appeal was admitted for hearing on 19.09.2013.

5. Prosecution case is that son of the informant (appellant) Rahul Singh @ Papu had left with his motor cycle bearing Registration No.AS-01-V-6197 from home on 17.09.2009 around 1 pm in the evening with some of his friends. Between 7.30 to 8 pm in the evening, appellant was informed by the local Police Station that his son had met with an accident and he was lying in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). On receipt of this information, appellant and his family members rushed to the hospital where they came to know that Rahul had already expired. After observing the body, appellant found some fresh injury marks because of which he apprehended that his son might have been killed by some unknown persons. Thereafter, appellant lodged an FIR in the Bhangagarh Police Station on the basis of which Bhangagarh Police Station Case No.107/2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC. In the course of investigation, police arrested respondent Nos.1 to 3 and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against them under Sections 302/379 IPC. Being a sessions triable case, it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial whereafter case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati. Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused-persons.

6. In the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the official witnesses. The accused-persons, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) where they pleaded denial. However, they did not adduce any evidence.

7. After hearing the matter, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup passed the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 granting benefit of doubt to the accused-persons and acquitted them of the charges.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding of the Court below is contrary to the weight of the evidence on record. Both PW3, Simanta Banikya, and PW4, Niki @ Amrita Sonowal, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly identified respondent Nos.1 to 3 as the persons who had assaulted the deceased. The medical certificate also supported the testimony of PW3 and PW4. In the course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused-persons could not explain the circumstances which appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Their answer to all the questions put to them was a simple denial. He contends that in the face of the unwavering testimony of the two eye witnesses, trial Court had erred by taking the view that accused-persons were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Murder of the deceased by the accused-persons was conclusively proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were disbelieved by the trial Court for apparent lapse of investigation, such as, not carrying out Test Identification Parade (TIP), not making analysis of call detail record of the seized mobile phones, etc. Therefore, present is a fit case for reversing the finding of acquittal and convicting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 302/34 IPC. In support of his submissions, Mr. Biswas has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(2003) 1 SCC 425 = Yunis Alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P.;

(2012) 5 GLR 364 = Matleb Ali Vs. State of A