The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, which necessitates the presentation of cogent material evidence and the examination of key witnesses.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Informant is aggrieved by the acquittal of accused persons by impugned judgment dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner No. XVIth, Ranchi in Session Trial No. 531 of 2005. Ten accused persons/opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 herein stood acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149, 447, 324, 307, 341 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the case of the prosecution based on written report of informant, Rita Devi, on 11th July, 2004, the informant, her husband and family members had gone to the place of occurrence to plough the field. Suddenly, at about 7 a.m. the accused persons, Gafur Mian, Shamim, Nasim, Afzal, Ishaque and Idris armed with bhala, farsa and lathi came to the field. Accused, Mahmood, Kalim, Sharif, Firoz with 4-5 persons also reached there. They began to abuse the informant, on which she protested. Accused Shamim armed with bhujali, Mahmood with sword, Afzal with gupti, Nasim with Akain and other with lathi attacked on Munnilal Mahto, Maniram Mahto, Meghnath Mahto, Santosh Mahto, Ramjit Mahto, Girdhari Mahto and Falinder Mahto and inflicted injury on them. Maniram Mahto sustained cut injury on his head, Ramjit Mahto got injury on his head, Meghnath Mahto sustained injury on his forehead and others also sustained injury on their hand, leg and back. Several persons had gathered during the occurrence and the accused persons fled away.

4. After submission of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons pleaded innocence on being explained of the charges and claimed to have been falsely implicated due to land dispute. They also admitted that accused Afzal was seriously assaulted by the informant party. Trial commenced.

5. One prosecution witness, Sonaram Mahto was adduced on behalf of the prosecution, though as per charge-sheet five prosecution witnesses were named. The entire case rested upon the evidence of PW1.

6. Learned trial Court considered the evidence on record and the case of the defence and came to the finding that non-examination of the informant, alleged injured persons and Investigating Officer were fatal to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, findings of conviction on the evidence of sole witness (PW1) cannot be recorded in the background of previous land dispute and admitted assault on accused Afzal Ansari. Prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, all the ten accused persons were held not guilty and acquitted of the charges.

7. P.W.1, in his cross-examination, had stated that the place of occurrence was a land being cultivated by the accused persons for 8-10 years prior to the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the field of Ghadda Par on 11th July, 2004 at about 7 a.m. According to him, Ramjit Mahto, Meghnath Mahto, Krishna Mahto, Halindra Mahto, Maniram, Mahto, Munnilal Mahto, Santosh Mahto, Girdhari Mahto, Sanjay Mahto, Rita Devi, Lalmani Devi and Raso Devi all had gone to plough the field, then the accused persons Gafur Ansari, Afzal, Mahmood, lshaque, Idris, Shamim, Nasim, Firoz, Sharif and Kalam reached there with bhujali, farsa, ballam and akin and began to assault, as a result of assault, Maniram, Ranjit, Mahto, Halindra, Meghnath, Santosh and Munilal became injured. Learned trial Court found that the prosecution witness No. 1 had made a vague statement in the sense that he failed to disclose as to which accused carried which weapon of assault as alleged in the written report. He also failed to state as to on which part of the body, Maniram Mahto and others sustained injuries as alleged in the written report. PW1 had failed to corroborate the instances of assault by the individual accused persons through the weapon of offence upon the injured persons, who were individual members of the informant party.

8. Learned trial Court als