JUDGMENT : HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against judgment of acquittal dated 16.11.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court I, Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 25/2012 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 228/2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 6 from the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal mainly on two grounds. First, sufficient opportunity was not given to the prosecution by the trial court to produce the evidence in support of the prosecution case. Second, the evidence of PW-1 has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the judgment of acquittal has not been passed in accordance with law and therefore this court should interfere into the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and it is submitted that perusal of impugned judgment would go to show that sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution to examine its witnesses by the trial court, but the prosecution failed to avail the opportunity given by the trial court. It is also submitted on behalf of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the impugned judgment of acquittal is well discussed judgment and has been passed after having considered all the materials available on record and as such there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 6. In this case respondent nos. 2 to 6 stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 327/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the prosecution case, only one witness PW-1 namely, Sharda Devi has been examined on behalf of prosecution. The learned trial court after recording the statement of respondent nos. 2 to 6 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after perusing the materials available on record passed the judgment of acquittal which is under challenge. 7. The learned trial court after recording the statement of respondent nos. 2 to 6 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after perusing the materials available on record passed the judgment of acquittal which is under challenge. 7. It is obvious from perusal of impugned judgment that in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has discussed the evidence of PW-1 Sharda Devi, mother of the informant, who has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that she was also assaulted by Rajbanshi Mukhia by Garasa on her head, as a result of which she also sustained injury which is inconsistent with the story of fard-e-beyan. The evidence of PW-1 was taken on 09.08.2012 by the trial court and, thereafter, not a single witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. In this case, the informant and other alleged injured witnesses are family members of PW-1 but in spite of that none of them turned up to depose in support of prosecution case. 8. Moreover, in this case Investigating Officer and Doctor has also not been examined, as a result, place of occurrence as well as injuries were not brought on record. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is manifest that sufficient opportunity was given to prosecution but prosecution failed to avail the opportunities granted by the trial court. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the trial court after considering the evidence on record has come to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case and bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing cogent, consistent and reliable evidence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly passed judgment of acquittal. 11. 10. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case and bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing cogent, consistent and reliable evidence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly passed judgment of acquittal. 11. It is well settled law that the finding of acquittal recorded by trial court cannot be disturbed unless the said finding appears to be absurd and without consideration of evidence but in the present case, as we have stated that the learned trial court having considered the evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case passed the impugned judgment and therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere into the impugned judgment. 12. Accordingly, this Cr. Appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.