The presumption of innocence remains unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in appeals against acquittal.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the learned trial court records.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed on 17.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2017, arising out of Sidhwaliya P.S. Case No. 59 of 2016.

3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to record a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. According to the learned trial court, the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence or the participation of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the materials present on the record are insufficient to warrant a conviction.

Prosecution Case

4. As per FIR, the prosecution case in brief is that on

31.07.2016 in the evening, informant Raj Kishore Ram went to demand the wages at the door of Verma Mahato, in the meanwhile, hot conversation took place in between the informant and Verma Mahato. Thereafter, Verma Mahato told that how dare he came at his door to demand wages being ‘Chamar-Siyar’, which was narrated to the informant by his son on coming home. Thereafter, Verma Mahato along with whole family namely Madan Mahato, Harendra Mahato, Bhalu Mahato, Munna Mahato and other unknown came and assaulted the informant’s son by fists and kicks. Informant and his aunty tried to save but they did not succeed in saving him, then nearby people came and made their interference. Thereafter, informant brought his son at Sidhwaliya Hospital for treatment but during the course of treatment his son died.

5. The allegations were investigated and police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 3 41 , 323, 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and (2)(1), 3(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘SC/ST Act’).

6. On the basis of charge-sheet dated 02.02.2017 cognizance was taken on 03.04.2017 under Sections 3 41 , 323, 302, 504/34 of the IPC and (2)(1), 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.

7. The charges were framed on 13.06.2017 against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the prosecution case.

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution :

Ext. P1 Post-mortem report of the deceased Mithun Kumar Ext. Signature of Dr. S. Kumar on the Post-mortem P1/1 report List of Defence Witnesses :

D.W. 1 Budhan Ram D.W. 2 Santosh Sah Findings of the Trial Court

9. The learned trial court after analyzing the evidences available on the record found that it is evident that prosecution has miserably failed to avail opportunity and has not supported any substantive piece of evidence to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against the accused and he cannot be convicted and no offence against him is made out and liable to get the benefit of reasonable doubt and deserves clean acquittal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

10. Learned