In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only intervene if the acquittal is perverse, upholding the presumption of innocence and requiring clear evidence consistent with guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-State”.] for assailing the judgment dated 22nd June, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior²[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2005 whereby, the High Court accepted the appeal preferred by the accused- respondent i.e., Ramveer Singh³[Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondent”] under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁴[For short, ‘CrPC’] and set aside the judgment dated 8th July, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Morena⁵[Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”] in Special Case No. 159 of 2003. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th July, 2005, the trial Court had convicted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860⁶[For short, ‘IPC’] and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as below: -

3. As noted above, the High Court in appeal reversed the judgment rendered by the trial Court and acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him. The appellant-State has filed the present appeal with special leave for assailing the acquittal of the accused-respondent as recorded by the High Court.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned counsel representing the appellant-State and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment rendered by the trial Court and so also the records of the case.

5. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10th March, 2003, a dehati nalishi (Ex. P-7) was recorded by ASI Janved Singh (PW-6) based on the statement of Poona Bai (PW-10) alleging inter alia that at about 4:00 pm, on the same day the accused-respondent forced his way into their house carrying a container having kerosene oil in it. He poured the kerosene on the body of her grand-daughter Badami Bai⁷[Hereinafter, referred to as “victim” or “deceased-victim”] and set her on fire with an intention of killing her. On seeing the attack, the witness (PW-10) started screaming and, as a result thereof, the accused-respondent fled away from the place of occurrence. On hearing the fervent cries of the informant, the neighbours and other family members assembled in the house.

6. It was further alleged that 12 days prior to the incident, Raju, son of the accused-respondent, had committed rape upon the victim and the matter was reported to the police by Ramveer Singh, son of Poona Bai (PW-10). Bearing this grudge in his mind, the accused-respondent had set the victim to fire. Based on the said statement of Poona Bai (PW-10), an FIR⁸[Crime No. 28 of 2003] came to be registered against the accused- respondent at Police Station Dimni, Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989⁹[For short, “SC/ST Act”].

7. The victim who was barely alive, was taken to the District Hospita