IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that in criminal appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must demonstrate clear errors in the trial court's findings and respect the presumption of innocence, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State claiming the following reliefs:

“It is further prayed that appeal of the State-Appellant may kindly be allowed, acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta may kindly be set aside and the accused-respondents may kindly be convicted and sentenced according to law.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.

3. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment dated 31.03.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case 22/90 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Devilal @ Devida & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents-Devilal @ Devida, Virdaram and Kewalchand have been acquitted and accused-respondent-Motiram and Annaram has been convicted under Sections 323 & 325 IPC respectively, but were granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that complainant-Nimbaram submitted an oral complaint (Ex.P/1) dated 18.03.1990 before the Police Station, Padukalan, Dsitrict Nagaur, stating therein that at about 7:00 p.m., while he was sitting in his house, accused-Kewalchand came to his house and started abusing the complainant from outside the house, whereupon, the complainant came out of his house and asked the said accused person to stop hurling abuses against the complainant; upon which, co-accused Anna Ram and Motiram came alongwith lathis and started beating the complainant and his father; thereafter, from the neighbourhood of the complainant, one Babulal and his mother-in-law Narbada came to the rescue of the complainant party. But even then, co-accused Devilal @ Devida and Birdaram also joined the accused persons and attacked Babulal and Narbada; accused Devilal @ Devida and Birdaram picked the stones and attacked them, as a result whereof, Narbada sustained injuries on the right eye and fell down. Thereafter, the neighbours, namely, Laduram, Chunaram and their families came to rescue of the victims.

4.1. On the basis of the aforementioned written information (Ex.P/1) given by the complainant, an FIR (EX-P./2) dated 18.03.1990 was registered at Police Station, Padukala, Nagaur for the offence under Sections 323 & 451 IPC, and the investigation accordingly commenced thereafter, and in an unfortunate event, Narbada died the next day, whereupon Section 302 IPC was added.

4.2. Accused-Devilal @ Devida was prosecuted under Sections 147, 323, 302 IPC, accused-Annaram was prosecuted under Section 325 IPC and other accused-Motiram, Virdaram and Kewalchand were prosecuted under Sections 147, 323, and 302/149 IPC.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons, which were read over to the accused persons; the same were denied by the accused persons, sought due trial, and the trial accordingly commenced who thereafter before the learned Trial Court.

6. During the course of trial, the evidence of 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 40 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, whereas, the accused in support of defence produced total 3 witnesses as well as 8 documents in defence; whereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.

7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment dated 31.03.1995 as above, against which the present appeal, has been preferred on behalf of the State.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submits that as per the evidence rendered by PW.1, PW.2 & PW.3, are in corroboration with each other and they fully support the pr