- (1.) THIS revision application arises against the judgment dated 30.5.1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 1996, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused -opposite party no. 2 (herein) from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in short, was that the informant Barhni Devi (petitioner herein) the widow of the deceased, Rameshwar Mahto lodged information to that effect that the opposite party no. 2, Shyamlal Mahto was the elder brother of her husband, Rameshwar Mahto. On 26.5.96 at about 2.00 P.M. some altercation took place between her husband and the accused relating to the partition of the joint family property. In the night of 26.5.96 the informant alongwith her husband and the children were sleeping on the roof of her house. At about midnight the informant came down from the roof as she was feeling well. It is said that at about 2.00 A.M. the accused came with "lathi ' in his hand went to the roof of the informant where her husband was sleeping and there he assaulted her husband with "lathI and dragged him down and then he sprinkled kerosene oil on his cloths and then set him on fire. The informant raised "Hullah ' and also tried to quench the fire but in the meantime the husband of the informant jumped down into a well to save his life. On "Hullaff the villagers assembled there and injured husband of the informant was taken out of the well and then was rushed to the hospital for treatment where in course of treatment he died on 27.5.1996. Altogether 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges. The learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution in detail, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution story was shrouded with contradictions, confusions and doubts and it was not safe to record conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the accused.
(3.) FROM the impugned order, I find that the learned trail court has rightly rejected the statement of a child witness (P.W. 3) and the statement of the widow of the deceased (P.W. 4) on the ground that they were contradictory to each other.;