IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal Appellate court can interfere only in case of perversity of fact and law.

JUDGMENT

N. V. RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2004, whereby the High Court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC, giving him the benefit of doubt.

2. Brief facts according to the prosecution case necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows. On receiving an anonymous telephonic information, regarding the killing of one Smt. Santosh, daughter of Devki Devi Mali, the Police reached the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.10Smt. Devki Devi, mother of the deceased. Therein, P.W.10Smt. Devki Devi, alleged that, the accused-Respondent, used to reside in vicinity and was harboring vengeance against the deceased Santosh as he believed that, few days earlier he was assaulted by 78 men, at the instance of the deceased Santosh. On the date of the incident, while the P.W.10 was at her agricultural farm, at about 6:00 A.M, P.W.5Seema, her minor daughter came up to her and informed that, in the preceding night, the accused-Respondent along with one person entered their home at around 02:00 A.M. and gave lathi blows to the deceased, consequent to which she died. P.W.10Devki Devi, thereafter immediately rushed to the house and found the body of the deceased lying on the roof.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi), a case was registered against the accused-Respondent and another person, thereafter they were arrested and subsequent recoveries were made in this regard. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed charging the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the accused persons were put on trial as they did not plead guilty to the charges leveled against them.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 11.06.2004, convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 460 IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC, with fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. He was also directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for conviction under Section 460 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one-month rigorous imprisonment.

5. On the other hand, the co-accused Sheokar @ Sheo kumar was acquitted by the trial Court after being given the benefit of doubt for the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 and 460 IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction, the accused-respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge. The benefit of doubt was extended in favor of the accused and he was acquitted from all the charges.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.

8. The counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that, the High Court has gravely erred while passing the order of acquittal despite the existing ocular evidence as well as forensic evidence wherein the guilt of the accused was clearly established.

9. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondent, while supporting the order of acquittal has submitted that, on objective appreciation of evidence, a reasonable doubt exists for disbelieving the case advanced by the prosecution. Hence, the High Court was right in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent.

10. Heard learned counsels for the Parties. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would only interfere where there exists perversity of fact and law. [See Bannareddy and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, (2018) 5 SCC 790] Further, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced against the a