IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Munnuri Laxman, J.) :

1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on the file of Session Case No.51/1993, wherein and whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 302/34, 326/34, 325/34, 325, 323 & 201 of IPC.

2) Against the said acquittal, the present appeal is at the instance of the State.

3) Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.1993 at about 3:30 p.m., Gurudev Singh, uncle of the deceased-Major Singh lodged a report at Police Station Anupgarh stating that on 17.04.1993, Major Singh and two brothers Binder Singh and Balveer Singh went to the field for harvesting crop. While he was returning, he found that Major Singh was at the liquor shop situated at Chak 137 RD Head. Binder Singh and Balveer Singh also saw that the deceased-Major Singh was consuming the liquor at liquor shop at about 7:30 pm and they insisted Major Singh to come along with them. However, he could not accompany them and did not turn out the entire night to the house. When the complainant went to Chak 137 RD Head next day morning at about 6:30 p.m., he met with Mangla Ram and Goma Ram. They informed the complainant that they had seen the deceased Major Singh. He was being forcibly dragged by Mandar Singh and after that, Mandar Singh’s mother had heard crying ‘maar diya, maar diya”. The complainant went to the house of the relatives of the accused and verified presence of Major Singh but he could not find Major Singh. On suspicion, when they went to get information from accused-Mandar Singh, the door of the house of accused was blocked and all the accused were absconded. Thus, suspicion was entertained on Mandar Singh.

4) On the basis of the said report, the police registered the FIR No.113/1993 (Exhibit-P/2) at Police Station Anupgarh for offence under Section 364 of IPC. While the investigation was in progress, the brother of the deceased came to the Police Station and informed that the dead body of Major Singh was found in the canal. On such information, the Investigating Officer went to the place of dead body and after conducting site inspection, panchnama and inquest on the dead body, shifted the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. After postmortem examination was conducted, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused-persons and on interrogation, they made disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and basing on such confessions, slippers of the deceased, which were hidden in the nearby fields, were recovered under Exhibit- P/9. The recovery of lathi (stick) was also made under Exhibit-P/13.

5) After concluding the investigation, the police filed chargesheet. The final investigation reveals that the accused and the deceased had consumed alcohol and a quarrel took place in between them and the accused allegedly killed the deceased by strangulating and thrown the dead body into the canal by inflicting multiple injuries on his person with stick.

6) On appearance of the accused-appellants before the trial court, charges for offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 325, 323 and 201 of IPC were framed against the accused. The prosecution in support of its case has examined in all 16 witnesses and relied upon documents under Exhibit-P/1 to P/34. The accused have produced the documents under Exhibit-D/ 1 to D/4 in defence evidence.

7) The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on record found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt basing on the circumstantial evidence and accordingly, acquitted both the accused of the offences charged. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

8) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State has contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the various circumstanc