An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence after an acquittal and may only intervene if the trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by credible evidence, emphasizing the high burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1996, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 449, 342 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC ).

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that

2.1 That on 15.09.1995, deceased Mahammad Khujus Mahammad Ainun (complainant) was residing at Bhavnagar Road, Near Bharat Petrol Pump, Rajkot in the house of one Noor Mahammad Jivabhai has lodged the First Information Report to the effect that when he was at his home at about 2.30 pm and taking a nap, at that time, accused entered his house with a knife in his hand and assaulted him by giving a blow on stomach. After assaulting him, the accused ran away from the place and, therefore, he (injured) started shouting for help. It is alleged that after hearing the shout, said Noor Mahammad Jivabhai and neighbourhood were gathered there and, thereafter, Noor Mahammad Jivabhai and his wife took the injured to the Civil Hospital where he was treated and admitted as an indoor patient where the FIR being C.R.No.I – 337 of 1995 came to be lodged by the “B” Division Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of treatment, Mahammad Khujus was died and on 16.09.1995, the postmortem performed at the Civil Hospital.

2.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police commenced investigation, prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected the evidence and muddamal articles including the knife at the best of the accused, were sent to the FSL for analysis and after preparing arrest panchnama, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.8 of 1996.

2.3 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 2 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-

3.1 The defence side has examined one Haribhai Jerambhai Patel at Exhibit 77.

4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence.

5. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has stated that he is innocent.

6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the afore