- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as State.
(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2006 by which judgment he acquitted the accused opposite party Nos. 2 -6 giving finding that sole eye -witness the informant PW 10 is not an eye -witness. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has fully supported the evidence when he was cross -examined as PW 10. The prosecution case given by him in the First Information Report and the statement is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which has found various injuries on the person of the deceased, his father. He has further submitted that even the I.O. has corroborated the place of occurrence as given by the informant in his FIR and his statement in Court and as such the learned trial Court committed an error in law and in passing the order of acquittal against the opposite party Nos. 2 -6. She has relied in a decision of Supreme Court reported in (2007) 13 SCC 530 and (2007) 14 SCC 16 and submits that the informant is reliable witness and the Court has wrongly found that he has not seen the incident and acquitted the accused persons.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the evidence given by the informant in the First Information Report has not been supported by the eye - witness, his own cousin brother Anarul Sk., who has stated that at the time of occurrence he along with informant Abdul Alim were in Dhuliyan Bazar and as such in absence of any corroborative evidence, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused persons. He also relied in the case of Chandrappa V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2007 (3) East Cr C 183 (SC) : (2007) 4 SCC 415, which is relied in favour of the accused persons wherein the Apex Court has held that where two views are possible on evidence on record, the order of acquittal cannot be set aside.;