- (1.) THE petitioner has sought revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 9th July, 2008 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2000, whereby learned court below has acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. Earlier the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) LEARNED Trial Court after a full -dressed trial acquitted the accused persons. It has been submitted that the learned court below has not considered the important links of the circumstantial evidences and has erroneously given the accused persons benefit of doubt. It has been submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, which corroborates the prosecution version, has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party nos.2 to 5, on the other hand, opposed the revision application and submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the evidences, materials and documents available on record and after due scrutiny has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel submitted that from the evidences on record, it is evident that no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and that the allegation of enmity cuts both way. No independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused and the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and acquitted the opposite parties of the charges.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. On going through the judgment, we find that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly discussed all the evidences on record and has come to the conclusion on the basis thereof. Learned Trial Court has also fully considered the evidence of P.W.2 and has held that his testimony is not reliable, as there is improvement in his statement. Learned Trial Court found from the scrutiny of all the evidences on record that on postmortem the doctor could not give firm opinion regarding cause of death. In the F.S.L. report, it has come that in viscera there was a presence of Indosulfan, which is a poisonous pesticide and the death of the deceased appears to be caused by consumption of that poisonous material. He has further stated that there is no evidence to prove the complicity of the accused persons in the case. Almost all the prosecution witnesses except the official witness are family members of the deceased and none had seen the deceased in the company of the accused soon before his death.;