The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to the lack of reliable evidence and doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimonies, emphasizing that reasonable doubt favors the accused.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The State has filed the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.11.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.41 of 1999, wherein three accused were put to trial under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The FIR as C.R. No.1 of 1997 was registered with Dasada Police Station under Sections 302 and 452 of IPC by Dhudiben Nanjibhai Prajapati in Civil Hospital on 05.01.1997. It had been alleged by her that at 10:00 p.m. in the night hours, the complainant and her son Mahendra were sleeping in the house, the complainant – husband was sleeping in the ‘Varanda’. During the night hours the complainant had gone to answer nature’s call outside the house. When she came back in the house at that time, her uncle in-law - accused No.1 came in the house and poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. As as result, complainant received burn injuries. The complainant was shifted to Becharaji Hospital and from there, she was taken to Mahesana Civil Hospital, where she had given the complaint.

2.1 After the investigation, the police filed ‘B’ Summary report, however, a private complaint came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class by husband of the deceased and on order under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., after the inquiry, the learned J.M.F.C. issued process and directed to register offence under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and ‘B’ Summary report came to be rejected.

2.2 On committal, Sessions Case No.41 of 1999 was registered with Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra. The charges were framed below Exh.7 against the accused.

3. Learned APP Mr. Manan S.Maheta submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and facts on record. The learned Judge was required to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, who had categorically deposed before the Trial Court about the role played by the accused persons in the incident, and thereby has committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence in true perspective.

3.1 Mr. Maheta, learned APP, submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has not properly appreciated the most important aspect that the deceased herself had given FIR before the police, wherein she had specifically stated that accused No.1 had poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. The learned Judge has failed to consider the aspect that initially husband of the complainant had not given the statement in favour of the prosecution before the Investigating Officer, however, has explained by filing the private complaint that the accused had threatened the husband of the complainant as well as son of the complainant, and father and son both have given depositions against accused, which clarifies that accused No.1 had poured kerosene on her.

3.2 Learned APP Mr. Maheta submitted that explanation of the witnesses for not initially giving evidence against the accused has to be appreciated on the fact that both were subjected to pressure and threats by the relatives and under such duress were forced to give false statement, and subsequently they could file a private complaint before the competent Court and the facts could be brought to notice while the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered to file the case against the accused.

3.3 Learned APP further submitted that the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration had