The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural delays can undermine the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Bhuwan Goyal, J.)

The appellant-State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.02.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 61/1996 (State of Rajasthan v. Harishanker alias Mulya & Anr.), whereby accused-respondent Harishanker was acquitted of offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent Ramniwas was acquitted of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of present appeal are that on 13.07.1996, complainant - Kripa Ram (P.W. 2) submitted a written report (Ex.P/6) before the police at General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur, wherein it was inter-alia alleged that today, he and his wife Jasoda were irrigating peanut crop from the well. At around 4.00 p.m., Bhutya alias Mulya alias Harishanker, who is his younger brother, came and started to dismantle the boundary (Dol) of his field and he was accompanied by his uncle Ramniwas. Both of them were dismantling his boundary. On stopping them from dismantling the boundary, his brother - Harishanker, who was having 'Kudali' in his hands, inflicted blow from handle side of 'Kudali' on his head but since towel was tied on his head, he fell down. Thereafter, his uncle Ramniwas and brother Harishanker @ Mulya (Bhutya) with intention to kill his wife, inflicted 'Kudali' blow on her head. They inflicted 3 blows from sharp edge and handle side of 'Kudali' on the head of his wife and also inflicted 2-3 blows from handle side of 'Kudali' on her back. He ran towards the village in fear. Later on, both Harishanker and Ramniwas treating his wife as dead, went away. He went in the village and when he returned to his well along with his mother and father then, his wife was found lying there. He along with Sitaram Mahajan, Gopal Gurjar and Felu Meena took his wife to the hospital at Sawai Madhopur in the tractor of one Ramdhan. When his brother Harishanker (Mulya) and his uncle Ramniwas had beaten him and his wife in their field, there was no one present in the nearby fields etc.

3. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. No.266/1996 (Ex.P/10) came to be registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, since injured Jasoda expired, therefore, police added Section 302 of I.P.C. in the matter and after conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 & 323 of I.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondents and committed the case to the Court of Sessions i.e. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as "learned trial court").

4. Learned trial court framed charges against accused-respondent No.1 for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/28 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and claimed that prosecution evidence was false, they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondents did not produce any oral evidence but got documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3 exhibited in their defence.

5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment dated 03.02.1997, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted of charges le