IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.4/2000 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukh Ram), whereby the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2000.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that the incident which was reported at 8:00 am on 09.10.1999, occurred at 10:00 pm on 08.10.1999 when the complainant Pappu Ram alongwith his brother Jagdish and cousin Banwari went to the nearby field of their uncle (Chacha) Mukh Ram-accused where deceased Jagdish confronted Mukh Ram as to why he was spreading false rumours about his wife, upon which the accused Mukh Ram (uncle) got annoyed and used a sword to hit the deceased Jagdish due to which deceased Jagdish fell down. Thereafter, the deceased Jagdish was taken to the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar where he was declared dead.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused respondent, and the trial commenced accordingly.

5. During the course of trial, the evidence of seven prosecution witnesses were recorded in which crucial witness were PW.2- Pappu Ram who was the eye witnesses and brother of the deceased and PW.3-Madan Singh who was the Investigating Officer. Further 19 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and one document was exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondent; whereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-respondent 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 08.05.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the PW.2- Pappu Ram is an eye witness and the analogy drawn by him is such that it cannot be discarded whereas the learned trial Court has proceeded to find lacuna in the testimony of PW.2 Pappu Ram which otherwise is consistent.

7.1 Learned counsel for the State further submits that the doctor had also supported the injury, to be the cause of death, thus, it was a case where the conviction should have been arrived at. The minor discrepancies in the prosecution case were not sufficient enough to overlook the prosecution case and to collapse the same.

7.2 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the description of one injury on the chest and then one on the neck is also a corollary and therefore should not go in favour of the accused.

7.3 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the analogy of carrying the body of deceased on a cot and then shifting it on a camel cart was also a part of natural flow of event which happened resulting into the deceased being taken to the hospital and being declared dead.

7.4 Learned counsel for the State also submits that PW.2-Pappu Ram has accepted in his deposition that they had gone to the Police Station at Hindumal Kote at about 03:00 am but the report was taken only at about 07:00 am which is there on record as Ex.-P/2.

7.5 Learned counsel for the State also submits that in the given circumstances where the place of incident was a private field and it was an inter-family altercation, the question of any independent p