The appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless it is manifestly erroneous or contrary to the evidence on record.

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2006 passed by the trial court, by which the respondents have been acquitted of offence under sections 302, 109, 330, 342 and 193 RPC. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos. 1 & 8 have expired, therefore, appeal insofar as it pertains to respondents 1& 8 is abated.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that prosecution witnesses, namely, Mangat Ram, Janki Nath, Som Nath, Devi Dass and some others were involved in the murder case of Iqbal Kasai and were charge sheeted before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that respondents gave beating to the deceased Sher Singh in custody, due to which he succumbed to the injuries and expired. Thereafter, FIR was lodged and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondents for the offences as aforesaid. The trial Court vide order dated 11.08.1989 discharged the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The State filed revision petition against order dated 11.08.1989 before this Court and this Court set aside order dated 11.08.1989 and remitted the case to the trial court for trial. The prosecution had cited 46 witnesses, out of which 10 witnesses, namely, PW1-Roop Krishan, PW 3-Mangat Ram, PW 5-Janki Nath, PW 6-Ram Dhan, PW 14-Ab.Razak, PW 15-Som Nath, PW 18-Devi Dass, PW 21-Ab.Rashid, PW 22-Som Nath, PW 24-Gopa Ram and PW 28 Ab. Majiv Tak, have been examined as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-2, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-27 have expired during the pendency of the trial and the remaining witnesses were not produced before the Court for recording their statements. The trial court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the evidence of PW 3-Mangat Ram, PW 5 Janki Nath and PW 6-Ram Dhan, who have clearly stated that the respondents have given beating to the deceased, namely, Sher Singh as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. However, the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the trial court.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Prosecution witnesses, namely, Mangat Ram, Janki Nath, Ram Dhan Abdul Razak, Devi Dass and Abdul Rashid in their deposition have stated that the deceased Sher Shigh was taken into custody by the accused persons because of his involvement in the murder of Iqbal Kasai. They have further stated that beating was given to the deceased by the respondents. However, they have failed to prove the fact that deceased Sher Singh died in custody. According to the statement of Mangat Ram, deceased, Sher Singh was beaten by the accused persons Sikandar Bashir, Iqbal and Abass while being kept in a separate room but in cross-examination, he stated his ignorance as to who amongst the accused persons interrogated the deceased. PW-Janki Nath has stated that Sher Singh was beaten with stick. He has further stated that he does not know who had interrogated the deceased. PW-Ram Dhan has stated that Sher Singh was beaten by Sikandar and his death ensued instantly after receiving the beating in Police Station. PW Devi Dass has stated that Policemen investigating the case are not known to him. From the version of the aforesaid witnesses, they were kept in a separate room in Police Station at Marwah and were interrogated individually in the separate rooms by the accused persons so they would not have witnessed by whose b