The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony undermine the case against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.04.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Session Case No.68 of 1989. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondent-accused for offence under sections 302, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

2. The bare facts of the case are that on 20.04.1989, at around 9:15 PM, in Dharamshala Faliya, Naliya, Abdasa Taluka, Kutch, the accused attempted to assault Bhupsingh Raghubirsingh Chaudhary, a wireless operator at Naliya Customs House, with a stick, but Bhupsingh’s wife, the complainant, snatched it away. The accused’s sister, a juvenile offender, then brought a knife and handed it to the accused, who inflicted a fatal stab wound on Bhupsingh’s abdomen, thereby committing offence under section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Additionally, the accused intimidated and abused the deceased and the complainant, constituting an offence under section 504 read with section 34 of the IPC. Furthermore, by carrying a knife in a public place in violation of the District Magistrate’s prohibitory order, the accused committed an offense punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present appeal challenges the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh, Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1989. The accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The impugned judgment is contrary to law and the evidence on record, and therefore, requires interference by this Hon’ble Court.

3.1 It is submitted that the prosecution examined key eyewitnesses, including the wife of the deceased namely Shakuntala, his daughter Ranikumari, and witness Jagdish, who had directly witnessed the incident. Their statements were consistent and supported the prosecution case in its entirety. However, the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate their testimonies properly.

3.2 It is submitted that apart from the family members, two independent eyewitnesses also supported the prosecution’s case. The Trial Court erroneously disregarded their testimonies, which were crucial in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

3.3 It is submitted that the Trial Court wrongly assumed that the deceased might have fallen on an iron bar, which caused the fatal injury. This assumption is mere conjecture, without any supporting evidence, and is against the established principles of criminal law.

3.4 It is submitted that the order of acquittal is against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the Learned Trial Judge wrongfully discarded the prosecution’s evidence, leading to an erroneous acquittal.

4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused has supported the judgment of acquittal and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh, Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1989, is just, legal, and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

4.1 It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on interested witnesses, namely the wife and daughter of the deceased, who had personal reasons to implicate the accused. The so-scalled independent witnesses are either unreliable or did not witness the actual incident, making their testimonies doubtful.

4.2 It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses have made material contradictions and improvements in their statements during the course of the investigation and trial. The inconsistencies in their deposi