RAKESH KUMAR,J. - (1.) The present Appeal under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") was earlier filed against judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by Sri Krishan Kumar Agrawal, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the "trial judge") whereby the learned trial judge acquitted respondent no. 2 from charges of Section 302/34, 380, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C.") and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arms Act").
(2.) The Appeal was firstly taken up for hearing at the point of admission on 22.07.2010 and after going through the judgment of the trial court a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court finding good grounds for passing order of acquittal dismissed the Appeal in limine, however, against rejection of Appeal, the informant, who is appellant in the present case, preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 9157 of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that judgment of rejection of Appeal was having no reason, considered the judgment as cryptic and allowed the Appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment i.e. the order dated 22.07.2010 passed in the present Appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted back the matter to this Court for its disposal. Thereafter, on 24.11.2016 the Appeal was admitted for hearing, lower court record was called for and bailable warrant of arrest for Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) was issued against respondent no. 2. It was observed as follows: "The respondent no. 2 shall execute a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Gaya in connection with Sessions Trial No. 541 of 2009/88 of 2007(S.J.) (arising from Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2005)". Where after respondent no. 2 has entered his appearance. It is evident that respondent no. 2 was put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 541 of 2009/88 of 2007 (S.J.) (arising out of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2005). However, after examining entire evidence including defence evidence, the learned trial judge passed judgment of acquittal assigning detailed reason by its judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 which is under challenge in the present Appeal.
(3.) At the very outset, it is necessary to indicate that against judgment of acquittal there is very limited scope for this Court to examine the evidence, which has already been examined by the trial court and a finding has been recorded. If there is apparent perversity or it was a case of passing judgment contrary to the record, then in that event certainly judgment of acquittal was required to be interfered with. Before proceeding, we have minutely examined the entire judgment of the trial court and after going through the same prima facie we are of the opinion that there is no perversity in the judgment. However, since the matter was remitted back to this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has examined entire evidences, which were brought on record during the trial.;