The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; acquittal should not be disturbed unless clear error or perversity is shown.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK SHELAT, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 04.01.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Session Case No.244 of 2002. The State is in appeal before us challenging the impugned judgment and order, by which the respondent – accused has been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

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

2.1 The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.5.2002 at 4 O'clock or thereabout, the accused of this case sprinkled acid on the deceased Gautambhai and his daughter aged about 7 years, who were sleeping in the Dhaliya near their house and thereby caused their death. The motive of the offence was that the accused was having illicit relation with Sumitraben, wife of the deceased, for the last 4 years and the deceased Gautambhai and Dakshaben being an obstacle for the aforesaid illicit relation, the accused caused the death of both of them.As the possession of acid is against the Notification of the District Magistrate, the accused has also committed the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. An FIR came to be filed with the Jambughoda Police Station being for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, PM Report etc. After having found sufficient material against the Respondent - accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, as alleged offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Godhra, as provided under Section 209 of the Code, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 244/2002.

2.2 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Godhra, the Ld. Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.3 against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents - Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. He was tried for the said offences and in order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Sessions Court. The details of the evidence led by the prosecution are reproduced in the tabular form hereunder:

Oral Evidences

Documentary Evidences

2.4 Thus, prosecution had examined the complainant, eye witnesses, medical officer and the police wi