IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and acquittal should be upheld unless clear evidence of guilt is established.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.2002, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.03/2002 (State Vs. Dr. Sunderlal Goplani), whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 307 & 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on 03.12.2001 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2002.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State are that on 03.12.2001, a complaint was lodged on the Parcha Bayan by Ms. Anjori (complainant and PW-1) for an incident which was happened on 03.12.2001. In the said Parcha Bayan, the complainant – Anjori alleged that on 02.12.2001, she was sleeping with her parents in the same room. At about 5:00 am, she heard cries of her mother and when she switched on the light, she saw her mother lying on the floor in the pool of blood. Then her father took her to another room and tried to put her to sleep. Suddenly, her father inflicted knife injuries to her and she got frightened. When her father left that room, she closed the door of the room and went to the balcony of the house and called the neighbours for help, then three neighbours came there to whom she narrated the whole incident. They all went to the room where her mother was lying dead.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR bearing No.359/2001 was lodged on the Parcha Bayan of complainant Anjori (PW-1) at 10.40 am on 03.12.2001 before P.S. Shastrinagar, Jodhpur. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307 & 309 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and the trial commenced accordingly.

5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 59 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. 1 defence witness was examined and 1 document was exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question.

6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.2002, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.

7. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that the FSL report indicates matching of the blood stains on the clothes of the accused as well as of the deceased with the blood group of the deceased.

7.1 Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General further submits that other documents i.e. site plan, medical report, postmortem report and Panchnama of the dead body are also supporting the prosecution story completely.

7.2 Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that when the circumstantial evidence is clearly pointing towards the accused-husband then merely because PW-1 Anjori (the daughter of the deceased and eye witness) turned hostile, it would not be appropriate to arrive at a conclusion. The learned Trial Court has completely failed to appreciate that there were serious injuries on the body of the accused himself lending influence to the version that after killing his wife he tried to commit suicide.

7.3 Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General further submits that the Parcha Bayan was corroborating the i