JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the Informant / appellant, State and the private Respondents on the prayer for condonation of delay of nine days made through I.A. No. 2359/2019 and also on the application for grant of Leave to Appeal in terms of section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made through I.A. No. 2381/2019 against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions Trial No. 184/2015 dated 29.06.2018 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra, whereunder three accused persons / private Respondents have been acquitted from the charge under sections 342/34, 325/34 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. 2. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, delay of nine days in preferring this Acquittal Appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 2359/2019 stands disposed of. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length on the prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, relevant material facts and evidence borne from the record are briefly discussed hereunder: Brother of the deceased Mahesh Pandey namely, Ram Lakhan Pandey (Informant) lodged fardbeyan (Ext.2) on 06.08.2015 at 14.45 hours, alleging that on 06.08.2015 at 11.00 am while his brother Mahesh Pandey was ploughing the field, an altercation took place with the accused Mithun Pandey due to accidental encroachment over the field of the accused Mithun Pandey, as a result of which, assault was committed by means of weapons like iron rod, spade and axe by the accused persons both on his brother Mahesh Pandey causing his death and also on his wife Kiran Devi (P.W.1) who sustained injuries. Mahesh Pandey died on the spot and Kiran Devi was brought to referral hospital for treatment. This incidence was narrated to him while returning from his field by his wife Sanjoti Devi (P.W.2). 4. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under sections 342/34, 325/34 and 302/34 I.P.C which were explained to the accused persons in Hindi, to which they claimed to be tried and pleaded not guilty. 5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses, as under: P.W.1: Mostt. 4. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under sections 342/34, 325/34 and 302/34 I.P.C which were explained to the accused persons in Hindi, to which they claimed to be tried and pleaded not guilty. 5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses, as under: P.W.1: Mostt. Kiran Devi, wife of the deceased Mahesh Pandey P.W.2: Sanjoti Devi, wife of the Informant Ram Lakhan Pandey P.W.3: Ram Lakhan Pandey (Informant) P.W.4: Balkeshwar Singh, Investigating Officer of the case P.W.5: Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad Jaiswal who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Mahesh Pandey and proved the report, marked as Ext.7. P.W.6: Mithilesh Pandey, treated as chance and related witness P.W.7: Dr. Vijay Shankar Yogyani who examined the injured Kiran Devi, wife of the deceased. Following documents were also produced and exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Ext.1: Signature of Ram Lakhan Pandey on Fardbeyan Ext.1/1: Signature of Ram Lakhan Pandey on seizure list Ext.1/2: Signature of Bajrangi Choubey on the seizure list Ext.2: Fardbeyan Ext.2/1: Endorsement Ext.3: Seizure List Ext.4: Inquest Report Ext.5: Challan report for post-mortem Ext.6: Formal FIR Ext.6/1-6/2: Signature of the then officer-in-charge on formal FIR Ext.7: Post-mortem report of deceased Ext.8: Injury report of Kiran Devi Ext.9&9/1: F.S.L reports. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the cr.Pc where they denied the entire occurrence and pleaded innocence. However, no evidence was adduced on their behalf. 7. Learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions of the parties, came to a finding that the evidence of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence and the medical evidence is not consistent with the prosecution case. There are major contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 which are fatal. Prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence and certain witnesses such as Sunaina Devi and Sugriv Pandey have also not been examined, though they were vital to the case of the prosecution. Motive of occurrence has also not been proved. This created grave doubt in the prosecution case. As such, accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, they were acquitted of the charges. 8. Motive of occurrence has also not been proved. This created grave doubt in the prosecution case. As such, accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, they were acquitted of the charges. 8. In order to press the plea for grant of Leave to Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has inter-alia made the following submissions: He submits that the findings of the learned Trial Court suffers from perversity in the appreciation of the evidence as testimony of eyewitness P.W.1, wife of the deceased and also an injured witness and P.W.2, wife of the Informant who was washing clothes at the adjacent well near the place of occurrence, has been disbelieved without any basis. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed the medical evidence in the nature of post-mortem report (Ext.7) and injury report (Ext.8) proved by Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad Jaiswal (P.W.5) and Dr. Vijay Shankar Yogyani (P.W.7) respectively and the injury found on the dead body of the deceased Mahesh Pandey and his wife Kiran Devi, an injured witness (P.W.1). It is submitted that injuries found on the deceased and the injured, in fact, corroborates the ocular testimony. He further submits that the weapon of assault, blood stained soil seized from the place of occurrence, etc. examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory were found to contain human blood. These seizure were made from the place of occurrence as has been properly described by the Investigating Officer Balkeshwar Singh (P.W.4). Description of the place of occurrence by P.W.4, matches with the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2 both. As per the statement of the Investigating Officer, dead body was found at the place of occurrence. Merely because certain other witnesses have not come before the Court for making deposition, evidence of reliable eyewitness could not have been disbelieved. It is a case of direct evidence where motive takes a back seat. It is further submitted that the inquest report brought on record as Ext.4 corroborates the place of occurrence being the field of the victim Mahesh Pandey. The immediate cause of incidence has also been adequately proved by the prosecution witness nos. 1, 2 and 3, the informant as cauliflower crops of the accused Mithun Pandey got damaged by the deceased Mahesh Pandey during ploughing of his field. The immediate cause of incidence has also been adequately proved by the prosecution witness nos. 1, 2 and 3, the informant as cauliflower crops of the accused Mithun Pandey got damaged by the deceased Mahesh Pandey during ploughing of his field. The time of occurrence 11.00 am on 06.08.2015 is also not in doubt as it is the consistent story projected by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court are perverse and worthy of being challenged before the Appellate Court for re-appreciation of the evidence in entirety. Therefore, Leave to Appeal may be granted to assail the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned counsel for the private Respondents has broadly supported the findings of the learned Trial Court. He submits that there are major contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 who claimed to be the eyewitness. P.W.1 fell unconscious and regained consciousness at 9.00 pm in the night at the hospital. Therefore, she could not have narrated the incidence to the Informant (P.W.3) for lodging of fardbeyan at 3.00 pm on the said date. P.W.2 has not proved herself as an eyewitness. She has been projected as an eyewitness to conjure a manufactured case against the accused persons. P.W.3, the Informant, brother of the deceased is a hearsay witness and come back after ploughing of his field at a distance of 2.00 km from the alleged place of occurrence. Whatever he has stated in the fardbeyan or during deposition is no better than his wife (P.W.2) who herself is a doubtful witness. Due to all these major inconsistencies in the prosecution case relating to the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence, learned Trial Court had reason to bear grave doubt over the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the private Respondents has also placed the medical evidence of the doctors (P.Ws. 5 & 7) in order to make good his point that the alleged injury inflicted by Sabal causing hole in the neck of the deceased, as per the version of P.W.1 and 2, have not been found by the doctor (P.W.5) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Mahesh Pandey. Therefore, the medical evidence is not in line with the ocular testimony and discredits the reliability of the ocular evidence. Therefore, the medical evidence is not in line with the ocular testimony and discredits the reliability of the ocular evidence. Similar argument have also been made in respect of injury found on the body of Kiran Devi (P.W.1) by the doctor (P.W.7) Dr. Vijay Shankar Yogyani. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the private Respondents have supported the findings of the learned Trial Court and submits that once judgment of acquittal has been passed, there is double presumption in favour of the accused persons which should not be lightly interfered, unless findings are perverse and not based on any evidence at all. 10. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the findings of the learned Trial Court. 11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, State and private Respondents and the rival grounds urged and also gone through the discussions made on the evidence brought on record by the learned Trial Court while rendering its finding in the impugned judgment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances taken note above, evidence of the prosecution witnesses including injured witness (P.W.1), widow of the deceased, nature of injuries evidenced by the doctor conducting post-mortem (P.W.5) and also the doctor (P.W.7) treating the injured witness (P.W.1) Kiran Devi, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case of grant of Leave to Appeal. Merits of the case are not being discussed, lest it may prejudice the case of the parties during hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal through I.A. No. 2381/2019 is allowed. 12. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 13. Private Respondents have appeared on notice, therefore, no notice is required to be issued. 14. Call for the Lower Court Records in connection with Sessions Trial No. 184/2015 from the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra