D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.6.1999 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the accused persons/respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the night of 24.4.1988 one Jagmohan Ahir, father of the informant Arbind Ahir, was preparing food inside his house situated in Mauza Kendua Tola Paro Bringa district Gumla, when all of a sudden four assailants trespassed in the courtyard and started assaulting him. On the alarm raised by the Jagmohan Ahir, his two sons rushed to his rescue and then found that all the four assailants were armed variously. According to the informant, the respondent Bhutku Ahir and Somra Ahir were identified by them present there armed with lathi. The informant family resisted and during exercise of right to private defence, killed one unknown assailants. According to informant the respondents have called the unknown assailants to finish them because of land dispute between them: The Bano police registered Bano P.S. Case No. 11 of 1988 under Sections 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, investigated the case and submitted charge -sheet against five persons including three named accused who were declared absconder during trial. The respondents were charged for offences under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the participation of these two respondents in the actual offence. According the respondents were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the ground that in view of evidence available on record connecting the respondents in calling the unknown criminals who committed the offence they should not have been acquitted of the charges. The learned APP Mr. T.N. Verma, appearing for the State submitted before me that when the informant and other witnesses have specifically named the respondents to be present at the time of occurrence, the learned trial Court should not have given the benefit of doubt to the respondents.;