The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the need for a thorough scrutiny before reversing an order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Malsari Nandi, J.)

Heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. P. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2/3.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the informant in Sessions Case No. 313/2014 under Section 372 r/w Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, had acquitted the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the charge of the offence under Section 341/326/307/302/34 IPC.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the informant is that she lodged an FIR before the officer-in-charge Chapar Police Station on 07.02.2012, stating inter alia that on 06.02.2012 at about 10:30 p.m., when her husband Sanowar Ali was returning from his own brick kiln on his motorcycle bearing No. As-17-8741, a gang of miscreants intercepted him on his way and assaulted him with sharp weapons, as a result of which, he died on the spot. It is also stated in the FIR that when there was hue and cry raised by her husband at the time of the incident, co-villager Sahidul Islam came to the place of occurrence and when he tried to restrain the miscreants, they also inflicted serious injuries on the left hand of Sahidul Islam.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Chapar P.S. Case No. 33/2012 under Section 341/326/302/34 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and subsequently the dead body was forwarded to the hospital for postmortem examination. During investigation, the injured Sahidul and witness Zakir Hussain were produced before the Magistrate, to record their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 341/326/302/34 IPC before the court of learned JMFC, Bilasipara. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, charge was framed under section 341/326/307/302 IPC which was read over and explained to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove the guilt of the respondents. However, there was no defence witness in the case. After completion of trial, the statement of both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating materials found in the statement of the witnesses were put to them, to which they stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case and pleaded their innocence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the landed counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court held that after evaluation of the evidence on record, the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, they were acquitted.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, the appellant who is the wife of the deceased Sanowar Ali, has preferred this appeal.

7. The first point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the statements of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were found to be consistent and trustworthy. Further, the statements were made before the Magistrate within a short period of time after the incident without any influence and as such, there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 23/05/2018 was liable to be interfered with.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W. 3, who was the eyewitness to the incident, stated before the learned Magistrate mention