MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6 and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) Informant of the case is in appeal before us. He is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dtd. 24/11/2020 passed by learned 15th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 2015 arising out of Dehri (Indrapuri) PS Case No. 164 of 2015, in so far as by the judgment under appeal, learned trial court has acquitted accused nos. 2 to 6 (respondent nos. 2 to 6) from the charges under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). To complete the records, it is worth-mentioning that altogether eight accused persons were chargesheeted in this case and investigation against one accused namely Abhimanyu Prajapati was kept pending. Later on, the case of accused Vinita Kumari and Abhimanyu Prajapati were sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sasaram considering them juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Out of remaining seven accused who were chargesheeted under Sec. 302 and 201/34 IPC, one accused namely Jagannath Prajapati died during pendency of the case, hence, the proceeding against him was dropped vide order dtd. 12/3/2020. Thus, lastly six accused faced trial in this case. On completion of trial, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the accused Sudama Prajapati whereas, respondent nos. 2 to 6 in this case have been acquitted from the charges.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidences of the prosecution which were available on the record.