- (1.) THIS revision application is against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Koderma in S.T. No. 121 of 2007.
(2.) THE revision of the judgment has been sought on the ground that the evidences of P.W. -3, P.W. -14, P.W. -15 and P.W. -18 have not been duly considered by the learned court below and the accused -opposite party No. 2 has been erroneously acquitted. Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is a failure on the part of the learned trial court as he has not considered the conduct of the accused and vital piece of evidence and has recorded his finding illegally. The impugned judgment is vitiated and fit to be set aside on account of non -consideration of material evidences. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and Ors. v. Ambika Yadav and Anr. : 2004 (7) SCC 665 and submitted that the revisional court can set aside an order of acquittal and remit the case for retrial, where trial court, overlooking material evidence, has passed the order.
(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that from the impugned judgment, it is evident that learned court below has considered the evidences on record thoroughly. Learned Court on due appraisal of evidences and material on record found and held that there is no direct evidence in the case. It is a case of only last seen. The prosecution failed to prove the charge even by circumstantial evidences. There is no proper link to complete the chain of the circumstances to hold that the accused and nobody else was the author of the said crime. Learned court below did not get sufficient evidence and thus, rightly acquitted the accused in absence of any cogent, reliable and credible evidence.;