The judgment emphasizes the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should interfere only if the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law, and that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

F.M. Reis, J.

1. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 10.07.2003 passed in Sessions Case no.18/2000, whereby, Respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 were given the benefit of doubt and, consequently, acquitted from charges under Section 120-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and a non-bailable warrant was issued against the Respondent no. 2.

2. It was the case of the Appellants/Prosecution that on 23.11.1999 at 21.30 hours, Shri Prakash Ramchandra Pujari resident of Davorlim, lodged a complaint that on 23.11.1999 at about 20.15 hours, at Khareaband, Margao, his brother in law Guru Pujari, whilst standing near his car, two unknown persons came on a Yamaha motorcycle and fired shots by pistol and fled with the said Yamaha motorcycle; that his said brother in law Gurudas Pujari, collapsed sustaining bleeding injuries and was shifted to the Hospicio Hospital, Margao, where he was declared dead before admission. Accordingly, an offence was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and further Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was added as criminal conspiracy came to light to kill the deceased. It is further the case of the Appellant that after investigations were carried out, a chargesheet was filed on 22.02.2000 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The charge came to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge on 30.11.2000 and thereafter the trial proceeded. In support of the case of the prosecution/Appellants, 55 witnesses were examined out of which 12 witnesses turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting the trial and proceeding under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., passed the impugned Judgment acquitting the said Respondents of the said charge. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants/State has filed the present Appeal.

3. Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondents have committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the fact that the deceased expired on account of a homicide has been duly established on the basis of the medical evidence on record. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that though 12 of the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the Respondents had committed the said crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that though there were no eye witnesses to the incident, but, however, the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution clearly establishes the chain pointing out that the Respondents have committed the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor further points out that the circumstantial evidence which has been established by the prosecution proved that the deceased and the Respondent no. 1 were matka agents in Margao city. He has further submitted that the prosecution has also established that there was rivalry between the deceased Gurudas and the Accused-Respondent no. 1 on account of such gambling business. The next circumstance according to the prosecution which has been established is that the gada of the deceased was burnt at Khareaband where the deceased was conducting his said business. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the prosecution has also established the fact that the deceased was receiving threats to his life prior to the incident and that the Respondent no. 1-Accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with the Respondent no. 2 to kill the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the Respondent no. 2 contacted the Respondent no. 3 to kill the deceased for a price and that the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 vi