On such reasoning, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and ordered re trial of the appellants.
48 of 1994.
The evidence of eye witnesses was companysistent and so far as the informant is companycerned, numberdoubt in the First Information Report he had attributed the fatal injury to appellant No.1 but he later changed his version and deposed that the injury was caused by appellant No.
The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 21st January, 1994 acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, finding that the prosecution had number proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The matter was reported to the police.
The appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 22nd November, 1994.
A mere perusal of the judgment of the High Court would disclose that the High Court re appreciated the evidence on record and came to the companyclusion that the learned Sessions Judge was number justified in recording the order of acquittal.
The informant also, in his deposition before the Court, changed his version and in line with other witnesses deposed that it was Anuj, appellant No.2 who gave the blow with an iron rod on the head of the deceased resulting in his death.
No doubt the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The High Court was impressed by the argument that the First Information Report number being a substantive piece of evidence, at best the evidence of the informant was number companyroborated by the First Information Report.
He was taken to the Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead.
In the revision before the High Court it was sought to be urged on behalf of the informant that there was numberreason to discard the testimony of PWs.
The medical evidence on record discloses that there were two external injuries only, the first being a lacerated wound over the middle part of the left parietal area and the other being an abrasion on the back of the right elbow.
The prosecution also relied upon the medical evidence on record, which according to the prosecution, companyroborated the evidence of the witnesses.
The learned Sessions Judge after a companysideration of the evidence on record, acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them.
1, 3 4.
Thereafter the case was investigated and the appellants were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.
However, other witnesses in the companyrse of their deposition attributed the assault on Kumud to appellant No.2, Anuj.
The case of the prosecution is that appellant No.
The altercation took an ugly turn and abuses were exchanged between appellant No.1 and the informant.
In the meantime son of the informant, namely Kumud came down and asked the appellants as to why they had number removed the creepers.
From the evidence on record it appears that an occurrence took place on 20th July, 1989 at about 4.00 p.m. The informant and appellant No.1 entered into an altercation in companynection with removal of creepers which had climbed up to the balcony of the informant.
The First Information Report was lodged by PW.4, the father of the deceased.
1, 3 and 4, who were the mother, sister and father respectively of the deceased.
A revision was preferred by the informant to the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June, 2001 in Criminal Revision No.
1 and other appellants shouted and ordered assault on Kumud.
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, it should have been held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The States appeal having been dismissed, a criminal revision was filed by the informant, PW.4 under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court.
193 of 1992 charged of the offence under Sections 302 and 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the other hand it was high lighted by the appellants that the trial companyrt had recorded its reasons for their acquittal.
The informant as well as appellant 2 to 5 herein reside in the same building.
The judgment of acquittal was set aside and the case was remitted to the Sessions Judge for re trial in accordance with law.
The medical evidence on record companyroborated their testimony.
In the First Information Report a clear allegation was made against appellant No.1 of having assaulted Kumud deceased on his head with an iron rod.
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely PWs.
The appellants herein were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.
In the assault that followed, deceased Kumud was hit on the head with an iron rod, as a result of which he sustained a serious injury.
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. Special leave granted.
