JUDGMENT : (Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) Heard Md. Ziaul Quamar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section Section 372 (proviso) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal has been filed by the informant against judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2024 rendered by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge – II, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2017 arising out of Jadia P.S. Case No. 118 of 2014, whereby the present private respondents or respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 302 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-informant, at the outset, submitted that though there are eye-witnesses to the incident in question, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court did not properly appreciate the said depositions given by the eye-witnesss and passed impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned counsel has supplied the copies of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the other relevant documents. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly referred the fardbeyan given by the son of the deceased who is P.W.5. It is submitted that in the said fardbeyan, the informant has narrated the manner in which the incident took place and role played by the present respondents-accused. It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with sticks and lathi and started beating the father as well as uncle of the informant and in the said incident, the uncle of the informant sustained injuries and father of the informant sustained injury on his head, as a result of which both the injured were immediately taken to the hospital. Thereafter, they were referred to Darbhanga. However, the father of the informant succumbed to the injury on the way and thereafter the informant returned with the dead body of his father and gave his fardbeyan before the police. Learned counsel further submits that there are eyewitnesses to the incident in question and, in fact, P.W.1 who is uncle of the informant and the brother of the deceased and is the injured eye-witness has supported the case of the informant despite which the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel further submits that there are eyewitnesses to the incident in question and, in fact, P.W.1 who is uncle of the informant and the brother of the deceased and is the injured eye-witness has supported the case of the informant despite which the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel would further submit that P.W.7 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor has specifically deposed that deceased sustained injury on his head as a result of which he died. The said injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the medical evidence also supports the version of the eye-witnesses. However, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the aforesaid medical evidence led by the prosecution and passed impugned judgment and order. 4. Learned counsel further submits that separate trial was conducted against four other co-accused and in the said case also the concerned trial Court acquitted the concerned accused against which the appellant has preferred separate appeal. 5. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal calls for interference and is fit to be set aside. 6. Learned APP has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. However, looking to the facts of the present case, this Court may pass appropriate order. Learned APP has further submitted that till date the State has not filed any acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment rendered by the concerned trial Court. 7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have also perused the materials placed on record including the fardbeyan as well as depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced by the prosecution. Copy of the same was supplied by learned counsel for the appellant. From the materials placed on record, it would emerge that the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses. P.W.5. Copy of the same was supplied by learned counsel for the appellant. From the materials placed on record, it would emerge that the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses. P.W.5. is the informant who lodged the F.I.R. In the fardbeyan given by P.W.5., it has been stated that the incident took place at about 7 AM in the morning on 29.09.2014, all the named accused in the fardbeyan came with stick and lathi and started beating the father as well as the uncle of the said witness and in the said incident father of the informant sustained injuries on his head. Initially, they were taken to Jadia Police Station, however, the concerned police officer referred both the injured to the Tribeniganj referral hospital for treatment. The concerned Doctor in the said hospital referred the father of the informant to Darbhanga for better treatment and on the way to the said hospital at Darbhanga, father of the informant succumbed to the injuries and thereafter the informant returned with the dead body of his father to Sadar Hospital, Supaul. The concerned authority informed Jadia Police Station and thereafter a police officer from the said police station came to the hospital and the fardbeyan of the informant came to be recorded. 8. P.W.1. is the brother of the deceased. As per the case of the prosecution, he also sustained injury in the incident in question. The said witness stated in his examination-in-chief that all the accused came at the place of incident armed with sticks and farsa and gave blow to Gayasuddin (deceased) with the said weapon when he as well as wife of Gayaasuddin tried to save Gayasuddin, all the accused also started beating them and in the said incident Gayasuddin sustained injuries on his head and, therefore, they were taken to the hospital and brother of the said witness died. In the cross-examination, the said witness stated that the present complaint has been filed by wife of Gayasuddin and he has also admitted that he is not having any papers with regard to treatment given to him. He has further stated that wife of Gayasuddin become unconscious he further stated that wife of Gayasuddin was not admitted to hospital and her medical examination was not conducted. 9. P.W.2., Md. Harun, is also brother of deceased Gayasuddin. He has further stated that wife of Gayasuddin become unconscious he further stated that wife of Gayasuddin was not admitted to hospital and her medical examination was not conducted. 9. P.W.2., Md. Harun, is also brother of deceased Gayasuddin. The said witness stated in examination-in-chief that all the accused came at the place of incident and killed his brother Gayasuddin. The said witness admitted in cross-examination in para 19 dated 19.02.2022 that in the said incident the other village people also sustained injuries, however, he is not in a position to give the name of the said injured person. He has further stated that his statement was recorded by the police two to four days after the incident. He has further stated that 10 to 12 blows were given with stick to Gayasuddin by the accused. Gayasuddin sustained injuries on various parts of his body. 10. P.W.3 Md. Shaukat has stated in examination-in-chief that accused came at the place of Gayasuddin and gave blow with the weapons, which they were carrying and thereafter Gayasuddin was taken to the hospital and on the way he succumbed to the injuries. He has specially stated that his house is situated about 100 meters away from the house of Gayasuddin. Further the said witness has admitted in the cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police after two days of incident. He has further stated that 9 accused were beating the deceased with stick, bhala and farsa. He has also stated that his brother Sauf had given money to Gayasuddin for purchase of land. 11. P.W.4., Subeda Khatoon, is the wife of the deceased. The said witness has stated in her examination-in-chief that all the accused came at the place with Stick, Bhala and Gadasa and made an assault with the said weapons on her husband. The said accused have also given blow with the said weapons to her as well as P.W.1. Jamaluddin and the son of the said witness. She has also stated that her another brother-in-law Chaand also sustained injuries in the said incident. The said witness further admitted that her husband gave representation to Dy. S.P. one month prior to the date of incident because of the dispute between her husband and the accused. She has also stated that because of previous enmity with the accused, she had joined them as accused in the case. 12. P.W.5 Md. The said witness further admitted that her husband gave representation to Dy. S.P. one month prior to the date of incident because of the dispute between her husband and the accused. She has also stated that because of previous enmity with the accused, she had joined them as accused in the case. 12. P.W.5 Md. Junaid is the informant and son of the deceased, who lodged the FIR against the accused persons. The said witness has also stated in examination-in-chief that Soeb with his brother and other relatives came at the place with sticks and started beating him as well as his uncle. The said witness further stated that stick blow was given by Soeb as well Gulab on the head of his father, his father was taken to Tribeniganj Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Darbhanga and on the way his father died. Thereafter, his dead body was taken to Supaul, where the post mortem was conducted. He has also stated in examination-in-chief that statement of his father was recorded in the police station. The said witness also admitted during cross-examination that before his father succumbed to the injuries, his statement was recorded at Jadia police station, however, he did not know that in the said statement his father had given the name of the concerned persons or not. 12.1. In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached at the police station Jadia, his father was conscious and his father gave his statements to the police and his father also made his signature on his statement, but the case was not registered on the said statement of his father. He further stated that he cannot say as to whose names were given by his father in his statements and further stated that this case is registered on the basis of his statement recorded after the death of his father and first time he gave name of the accused persons in his statement. 12.2. He also stated in cross-examination that he saw the countless injuries on the body of his father and where his father fell down, there was blood stains on the ground as well as on the clothes he was wearing. He also stated that his father gave statement at police station Jadia in injured condition. He further stated that he gave his fardbeyan at Supaul after the death of his father. He also stated that his father gave statement at police station Jadia in injured condition. He further stated that he gave his fardbeyan at Supaul after the death of his father. He further stated that this case was not registered on the statements of his father. 13. P.W.7 is the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The said witness has stated that on 29.09.2014, he was posted at Sadar Hospital Supaul as Medical Officer, on that day, he conducted post mortem examination at 4:10 PM on the dead body of Md. Gyasuddin aged about 50 years s/o late Allauddin of ward No. 11 village Bageli, P.S. Jadia, District -Supaul, and found the following external appearance on examination:- “On dissection:- 1. Scalp and skull lacerated wound stitched previously opening of size "3X1" skull deep in right parietal region, skull cavities contained blood and blood clots. Vertivery NAD, membrane lacerated. Brain and spinal cord-brain matter lacerated at the injury site and blood and blood clot. Chest, ribs and cartilages - NAD Pleura-NAD, larynx and Tricia-NAD, Lungs-NAD, pericadium-NAD, Heart intact, left side empty right cometents small amount of body Large vacel-NAD abdominal all -NAD, peritoniul -NAD, mouth oesophagus and teeth NAD, STOMACH -Contis small quantity of semy and un digested food material. Small intestine contest guss liquid and faces. Large intestine, Contents, guss liquid and faces. Livir-intact and pale. Spell -intact, kidneys -intact and pale, pladder-contents small quantity of residual urine, external and internal ginitaila - NAD Muscle and bones- NAD, Opening-1 All the above mention injuries are ante mortem in nature caused by hard blunt substance. 2. Cause of death -death is caused by hemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injury. 3. Time elapsed since death between 6 hour to 24 hours. Report written by my pen and bears my signature.(Exhibit).” 14. P.W.8 is the second Investigating Officer, who had carried out the investigation after 08.05.2015, and the said witness filed the charge sheet against some of the accused. 15. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it would emerge that the prosecution had projected P.W.1 to P.W.6 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question. Most of the prosecution witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. 15. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it would emerge that the prosecution had projected P.W.1 to P.W.6 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question. Most of the prosecution witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. We have noticed various major contradictions as well as discrepancies in the depositions given by the prosecution witnesses. It is relevant to note that P.W.1, though claiming to be injured eye-witness, the prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor, who had given treatment to P.W.1 as well as P.W.4, even the injury certificates of the aforesaid witnesses were not produced before the Court. It further transpires from the record that P.W.1. stated in his deposition that in the said incident deceased Gayasuddin, said witness i.e. P.W.1 and wife of deceased sustained injuries. However, P.W.5, who is the informant of the present case, while giving his fardbeyan, has not stated with regard to the injuries sustained by his mother i.e. wife of deceased Gayasuddin. Further, P.W.4., Subeda Khatoon, who is wife of the deceased, has narrated different story before the Court. The said witness had stated that in the said incident she had sustained injuries alongwith his brother-in-law Jamaluddin and Chaand. She had also stated that her son Junaid also sustained injuries in the said incident. She had further stated that one month prior to the date of incident, her husband gave representation to Dy.S.P. with regard to dispute between the parties and because of the prior enmity, the accused have been implicated in the present case. This witness had stated that accused gave blow with stick, bhala and Gadasa to the deceased. It would further reveal from the deposition given by P.W.5, who is the informant, that in the said incident his uncle Chaand as well as the said witness sustained injuries. However, in the fardbeyan given by the said witness, he had not stated with regard to injuries sustained by him in the occurrence in question. 16. At this stage, deposition given by P.W.7 is required to be referred to. P.W.7. is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. This witness has found only one injury on the head of the deceased. 16. At this stage, deposition given by P.W.7 is required to be referred to. P.W.7. is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. This witness has found only one injury on the head of the deceased. At this stage, it is required to be recalled that as per the case of the so called eye-witnesses, all the accused came at the place of incident with sticks and other weapons and all of them gave blow with different weapons to the deceased as well as the injured witnesses, however, only one injury was found on the head of the deceased. Thus, we are of the view that the medical evidence does not support the version given by the prosecution witnesses. 17. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer, who has initially carried out the investigation. Because of the non-examination of the investigating officer, the defence lost the opportunity to cross-examine him and thereby prejudice has been caused to the defence even the so called weapons were not recovered or discovered from the accused. 18. It is true that merely because witnesses are interested or related witnesses, their deposition cannot be discarded. If the deposition given by the interested witnesses is found to be trustworthy, relying upon the deposition of such witnesses, conviction can be recorded. However, it is also well-settled that deposition of such related or interested witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. 19. As discussed herein above, all the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased and are interested witnesses. There are major contradiction, inconsistencies and discrepancies in their deposition with regard to the manner in which the incident took place and that of weapons which the accused were carrying at the time of incident. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the fardbeyan informant had made general allegation against all the accused that all the accused came at the place of incident with sticks and other weapons and started beating the deceased. Even the other so called eye witnesses have made general allegation against all the accused. However, none of the prosecution witnesses had stated against any of the accused that particular accused had given blow with stick on the head of the deceased. At this stage, the deposition given by P.W.5. Even the other so called eye witnesses have made general allegation against all the accused. However, none of the prosecution witnesses had stated against any of the accused that particular accused had given blow with stick on the head of the deceased. At this stage, the deposition given by P.W.5. informant is also required to be referred to. The informant, for the first time, while giving deposition before the Court in his examination-in-chief, had given name of two accused, namely, Soeb and Gulab, with an allegation that both the aforesaid accused gave blow with stick on the head of his father. However, none of the other witnesses have stated about the said aspect before the Court. Further, as observed hereinabove, the Doctor P.W.7., who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, has found only one injury on the head of the deceased. Thus, we are of the view that deposition given by so called eye witnesses who are interested witnesses is not trustworthy. Relying upon such deposition conviction can not be made. 20. Thus, after re-appreciating the entire evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in para 42 regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against order of acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 42 as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the facts as well as evidence of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, are carefully examined, we are of the view that in the present acquittal appeal filed by the informant, no interference is required with the judgment and order passed by the concerned trial Court. 23. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and we are of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.