PATNA, India, Oct. 6 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 8:

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023against the judgment of acquittaldated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VII, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2020, arising out of SaraiP.S. Case No. 73 of 2020, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted from the charge of Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.04.2020, the informant's son Sonu Kumar, aged about 17 years and a student of Matric, after taking dinner went to sleep in the dalan. At about 11:00 p.m., Respondent No. 2 along with Respondent No. 4 came on a motorcycle and took away Sonu Kumar on the pretext of some urgent work, despite objection from the informant's father who was assured that Sonu Kumar would be returned shortly. On the next morning, when Sonu Kumar was not found on his bed, the family members started searching for him and came to know that Respondent No. 2, along with his family members and some unknown persons, had murdered Sonu Kumar and Manisha Kumari, daughter of Respondent No. 2, and that their dead bodies were found in the house of Respondent No. 2. The alleged motive behind the occurrence is that both Sonu Kumar and Manisha Kumari, being classmates in Matric, were suspected of having a love affair, and on account of such suspicion, the murders were committed.

3. On the basis of the written complaint of the informant, Sarai P.S. Case No. 73 of 2020 was instituted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether 04 witnesses, namely PW1- Kripa Nath Singh, PW2- Pankaj Kumar, PW3- Karan Kumar and PW4- Alakh Ray. The prosecution also produced certain document, which was marked as Exhibits; Ext.1- the signature of the informant on the written application. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon conclusion of trial, learned trial court acquitted the accused persons from the charge of Section 306/34 of the I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution ought to have examined the main witnesses during the trial i.e. the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer and, therefore, in absence of their evidence, the impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment in a routine manner by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He further urged that the impugned judgment and order is based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the records of the case.

7. The sole question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires any interference by this Court.

8. On scrutiny of the materials available on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Neither the Investigating Officer nor the doctor has been examined in the present case. The absence of their evidence has caused a serious gap in the prosecution case, as the Court has been deprived of knowing the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the medical findings relating to the death of the deceased. These are material witnesses whose examination was necessary to unfold the true facts of the case.

9. It is further noticed that PW-1 and PW-2, who were examined as witnesses to the occurrence, have been declared hostile. Their evidence does not advance the prosecution case in any manner. In addition to this, no independent witness has been examined to corroborate the prosecution case. This creates further doubt about the reliability of the case as stated by prosecution.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxNjQjMjAyNSMxI04=-k3t6orVkxaE=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.