IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that an appellate court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court misreads or omits material evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the leave to appeal in the present matter may kindly be granted and entertained and accepted the appeal. It is further prayed that the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 28.10.1992 may kindly be set aside and the accused respondent be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under section 302 I.P.C.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.

3. The appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment dated 28.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No.31/91 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Angreysingh), whereby the present accused-respondent Angrej Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

4. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, at around eight kilometres away from the Police Station, Vijay Nagar, there existed a Chak namely, 3 BL, where Choto (wife of the accused-respondent) was residing, due to uncordial relationship between the accused-respondent and his said wife, and therefore, the accused-respondent by establishing a Dhani in his field, was residing with his second wife.

4.1. As per prosecution, the incident had happened on 20.06.1991. On that date, at around 1:00 pm, the father (Karnail Singh) of the first wife (Choto) of the accused-respondent submitted a report that in his and in the presence of one Jangeer Singh, the accused-respondent, at around 10:00 a.m., inflicted 5-6 blows by Kassi on the head of Choto (first wife of accused-respondent) and also inflicted a blow on her neck by the said weapon, as a result whereof, Choto fell on the ground. At the relevant time, Karnail Singh (father of Choto) alongwith the said Jangeer Singh were present at the place of incident, as they wished to bring Choto to his paternal home, while the accused-appellant did not let them do so.

4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the then SHO Kailash Chandra Meena of the concerned Police Station, reached the place of incident in question, alongwith a Doctor and a Photographer, whereafter, the panchnama laash of deceased-Choto was conducted and the dead body was inspected, as well as photographs of the dead body were clicked.

4.3. Upon such report, a case was registered and the police started the investigation. Only during the course of investigation, it was revealed that at the relevant time, the deceased’s 16 years daughter, namely, Rajvindra Kaur was also present at the place of incident in question at the relevant time. The police kept on searching for the accused-respondent for about five days thereafter. On 25.06.1991, the police was successful in taking the accused-respondent into custody. On 28.06.1991, the accused-respondent gave information to the police about the Kassi (weapon), using which, he committed the crime in question and also told the police that he can get the said weapon recovered from his dhani. Accordingly, on the same day, at around 9:00 am, the accused-respondent enabled the recovery of the said weapon as well as the clothes last worn by the deceased, from the roof of his Kotha. The same were then sent for FSL analysis, whereupon FSL report was submitted to the effect that the human blood detected on the said weapon as well as the clothes last worn by the deceased was of the same blood group; whereupon, on completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-respondent.

4.4. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent; the same upon being read over to the accused, were denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

4.5. During the trial, the prosecution produced 09 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents; in defence, 01 witness was produced and