The duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the entitlement of the accused to benefit of reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. K. Govenkar, learned counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. P. Faldessai learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th January 2018/22nd January 2018 made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda Goa in Sessions Case No.59/2015 convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12th September 2014 between 8.50 hours to 9.55 hours at Nirankal Ponda Goa, the Appellant (accused) requested the complainant (PW8) to take her to Nirankal via Kodar road and on reaching Kodar, stabbed the complainant with a sharp knife on his back body region and attempted to kill him. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused thereafter jumped from the scooter and ran away from the spot until she was arrested.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which she denied the charge but also offered an explanation about the incident. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Ms. Govenkar, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that based on the evidence on record the conviction is not sustainable. She points out that the explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is corroborated by the prosecution evidence on record. Based upon the same, the defence raised by the accused was extremely probable. She submits that in a criminal trial, the accused is not expected to establish her defence beyond the realm of reasonable doubt. She submits that by applying the test of preponderance of probability the defence raised by the accused in this matter is certainly established and therefore, the conviction is unsustainable.

6. Ms. Govenkar pointed out that PW8 alleged victim has deposed that he did not even realise for some time that he was allegedly stabbed with a knife. She pointed out that the doctor who is alleged to have performed the surgery on the victim was never examined by the prosecution but some other doctor was examined in his place. She pointed out that there is evidence on record that on the previous day of the incident, PW8 made almost 150 calls to the accused. She pointed out that in this case the accused herself reported the correct incident to the police at the earliest opportunity. She submits that from all this, it is apparent that the defence raised by the accused was established by her. She submits that non-consideration of such defence is a serious error, on account of which the conviction is liable to be set aside.

7. Ms. Govenkar without prejudice submitted that the accused hails from a poor family, her father was a heart patient and at the relevant time her younger brother was unemployed. The accused was at that stage maintaining her family and looking to these circumstances the sentence imposed is quite harsh and disproportionate. She, therefore, submits that this appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused be set aside.

8. Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor defends the impugned judgment and order based on the reasonings reflected therein. He submits that even going by the answers given by the accused in the course of record of her statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is quite clear that the last seen theory is clearly established. He submits that the explanation offered by the accused that PW8 inflicted injury on himself is too fantastic to deserve any credence. He submits that such a defence is not supported by medical evidence as well. He, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugn