The testimony of the sole eye-witness should be reliable and trustworthy and could be corroborated from other evidence. The revisional jurisdiction in examining an order of acquittal is narrow and should be exercised only in cases of manifest error of law or procedure or overlooked relevant and material evidence causing miscarriage of justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Add.P.P. for the State and learned counsels representing opposite party Nos.2 & 3.

2. Mother of the deceased has preferred this petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.01.2009, passed in S.T. No. 261 of 2003, by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, No. XVII-cum-Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi, whereunder, the learned court-below has acquitted opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 for the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, borne out from the FIR, lodged by the informant i.e. accused-opposite party No.3 herein, on 29.06.2001 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening his friend Moti Mahto (deceased) met him near Russian Hostel. On his request, the informant sat on the back seat of his motorcycle and went to the shop of the mother of Moti Mahto at Sector-II. On inquiry by Moti Mahto, his mother told that rice and pulse is ready to eat. However, Moti Mahto and informant left the place and after crossing the Project Building, Moti Mahto parked his motorcycle in front of tea shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu. Both of them proceeded towards southern direction from Railway line. All of a sudden, 4-5 persons started assaulting Moti Mahto, out of which, one person was identified by the informant. Out of fear and to save himself, the informant fled away but returned back, when the police jeep reached there. It is further alleged that miscreants were talking to kill Moti Mahto at any cost. Moti Mahto ran towards the tea stall of Sheo Lochan Sahu, but, the miscreants chased him and Banshi Mahto inflicted several knife blow injuries to him. Meanwhile, Sheo Lochan Sahu, his wife and daughter reached there and raised alarm. Prior to the said incident, informant along with Moti Mahto had visited the tea stall and found inimical terms between Banshi Mahto and Moti Mahto. Due to previous enmity, Banshi Mahto committed murder of Moti Mahto along with his associates.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the only named accused Banshi Mahto under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. S.T. No. 261 of 2003 commenced against the accused Banshi Mahto. During course of trial, the informant, Subodh Kumar Singh, PW-6, was summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, vide order dated 28.02.2005, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 11 of 2004, cases of both the original named accused and the informant were amalgamated and tried afresh.

5. Altogether ten prosecution witnesses were examined, apart from Investigating Officer. Two additional witnesses, namely, Hare Krishna Mahto, PW-7 and Ghasi Ram Oraon, PW-8, who were neither named in the FIR nor were earlier examined by the Investigating Officer, were allowed to be examined as prosecution witnesses. Investigating Officer had also not recorded any statement of these witnesses. Out of nine witnesses in the previous trial, seven witnesses, namely, Sheolochan Sah, Gango Devi, Punam Devi, Sanatan Mahto, Sarla Devi & Dr. Saroj had appeared in de novo trial. Their evidence-in-chief were recorded afresh and they were cross-examined by both the accused. The informant Subodh Kumar Singh was examined and cross-examined in previous trial and had turned hostile. On being made accused, he was excluded from summoning for evidence in de novo trial. Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, IO was also summoned. Prosecution and the father of the deceased, represented through private lawyer, did not examine him afresh, but, both the accused had further cross-examined the IO. Evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses were analyzed by the learned Court and after discussion of the entire conspectus of facts, it concluded that prosecution has totally failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accused were accordingly acquitted.

6. PW-1 is Dr. Saroj Kumar,