Virender Singh,CJ. - (1.) The appellant before us is the complainant-informant. Being aggrieved of the acquittal earned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide impugned judgment of learned Special Judge-cum Additional Sessions Judge. I, Pakur dated 13.08.2012. she has preferred the instant statutory appeal. Admittedly, the State has chosen not to assail the impugned judgment.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence available on trial Court record. We do not feel necessity of entering into the details of the prosecution case as the same is described in the impugned judgment itself.
(3.) Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is hinging upon circumstantial evidence and in our considered view, the trial Court, while diving deep into each and every plank of the circumstantial evidence, has ultimately arrived at categorical conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. It would be appropriate to refer paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment. It reads: "Admittedly, this case is based upon circumstantial evidence, To prove she case, the chain of circumstances, with clinching evidence, must be completed and of such a nature that it should rutted out any other library except the guilt of accused. In this case PW 1, PW 2 and PW 8 are the witnesses who have seen tile act used persons taking away deceased at 7:00 p.m. on 1 1.03.2006 from his house. PW 8 has stated about telling of her husband regarding some dispute for money with accused persons in village Hatia on same day. PW 2 has tried to support this fact but he has not stated this fact before Investigating Officer and his statement in the Court on the point is an addition without any explanation. For the sake of argument let us presume that his fact is also proved. PW 8 and the any other witnesses do not say that the amount was so bigger and the accused were so desperate that they would murder the deceased against payment of that money, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused and deceased were last seen at the time of murder near tin' place from where the dead body was recovered In Bansloi river. The medical evidence available on the record does not connect the time of absence and that the period expired after death. PW 3 does not support the death of Sonu Paharia on 11.03.2006. There are number of probabilities. One of that is the accused persons had confine the deceased in any hidden place and when the search was on, they committed murder later on. There is no evidence on record to support this theory'. Further, the accused persons were seen in the village and they met the informant near Shiv Temple of the village and they denied any knowledge about the deceased. If they were guilty, the possibility is that they would have gone away to screen themselves. The fact available on the record denies this probabilities. The time of taking away the deceased by accused is too distant from the time of his murder. In this way this is not a case of last seen and the chain of circumstance is not complete and probability of murder by any oilier person except accused cannot be ruled out.";