1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th Sept. 2003 passed by Shri Manoranjan Kavi, 6th Additional Sessions Judge. Giridih in Sessions Trial No 238 of 2000/44 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he acquitted both the respondents, namely Miraj Mian alias Boswa Mian and Masraf Mian.
2. The five convicts have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 1545 of 2003 against that order of conviction and sentence passed in S.T. No. 328 of 2000/44 of 2003.
3. Learned A.P.P. for the State-appellant has submitted that the learned Court below, while acquitting both the respondents, has not discussed the evidence properly resulting their acquittal. He referred to evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 (the I.O.).
4. On perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it is very clear that respondent No. 1 Miraj alias Boswa Mian gave stone blow on the chest of the deceased, while respondent No. 2 Masrat Mian climbed on the roof of Qayum Mian and opened fire, although none sustained firearm injury. In para 21 of the judgment, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih has discussed the evidence in detail and has found that although P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have deposed against respondent No. 2, who had opened fire from the roof of Qayum Mian, but the I.O. (P.W. 8) who inspected the P/O, found the house of Qayum Mian in the north of P/O and adjacent to the house of Nasruddin Mian. The I.O. further found mark of bullet on the eastern wall of Sakur Mian and those houses are also adjacent to the house of deceased Nasruddin Mian. Thus, the allegation against accused Masraf Mian that he opened fire standing on the roof facing north cannot create bullet mark on the eastern wall of the house which is after the house of Nasruddin Mian. P.W. 1 Paigam Mian and P.W. 4 Rahman Mian did not support the prosecution story that Masraf Mian was firing from the roof of Qayum Mian. DW 8 has deposed that Miraj and Masraf, both respondents, were present at the place only on the occasion of marriage of his daughter which was held on 12-5-2000, the day on which the alleged occurrence took place. Thus, assemblage of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not surprising, rather they had gone there to attend the marriage. The respondent No. 1 is alleged that he gave stone blow on the chest of the deceased, but the doctor (P.W. 3) who conducted autospy on the dead body, found multiple bruises of varying sizes on back side of the chest. These respondents are not the authors to have caused incised injuries or other injuries on the deceased. This shows that these respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were present there simply on the occasion of marriage, have been implicated in this case. The witnesses were also examined on behalf of these respondents. They have also deposed that they were not present at the P/O on the day when the alleged occurrence took place. We find that the learned Court below has discussed the evidence in detail and found contradictions in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence against the respondents and also the description of the P/O as given by the I.O. and manner of alleged firing by respondent No. 2 by climbing on the roof of Qayum which was also disbelieved by the learned Court below.
5. When considered we find that all the evidence available on record were discussed by the learned Court below and acquitted the respondents. We find that there is no any omission in discussing the evidence aforesaid against both the respondents. Viewed thus, we find no merit in this acquittal appeal filed against the respondents.
6. In the result, this acquittal appeal is dismissed.
