The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or perverse conclusion in acquittal cases.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Session Case No. 44 of 2001. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The prosecution alleges that on 28.04.2001 at about 6 p.m. the complainant-Labhuben Nanubhai was doing work outside her house situated in the street of Vaja Master near “Shravan Talkies” Surendranagar, after the completion of mason work in her house. At that time, the accused no. 1 Nanubhai Talshibhai Chunara Koli, called the deceased to come in the house. Thereafter, all the accused caught hold of her and tied her hands. Thereafter, accused no. 2 Rameshbhai Talshibhai Chunara Koli threw chilly powder in her eyes and then sprinkled kerosene on her body and set her on fire. On making shouts, the persons residing nearby, came to the scene and she was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar. Her complaint was recorded at the hospital at the instance of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Surendrangar.

2.2 Thereafter, First Information Report (FIR) with Sub Divisional Police Officer, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the aforesaid Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.4 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy and taking into consideration the testimony of the Medical Officers and considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges.

3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.13 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 18 prosecution witnesses and also produced 17 documentary evidence, which are as under:

Oral Evidences