IMPORTANT POINT
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 27.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.16/96 (State Vs. Premaram & Ors.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges against them under Sections 148, 302 & 302/149 IPC, while giving them the benefit of doubt.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1996 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 28.02.1996, Bhanwar Singh (PW-2) submitted an oral report before the Reserve (Aarakshi) Centre, Mahajan, District Bikaner, which, to the extent necessary for the present adjudication, was to the effect that on the said date, when Bhanwar Singh and one Ugam Singh reached near the field of one Poonam Singh at Beed Sangreyo, Roop Singh (son of the complainant), came out from the said field, and informed that the accused-respondents armed with barchi, axe and lathis, in the field of Poonam Singh, were subjecting his uncle Gopal Singh (deceased) to beatings.

3.1. Thereupon, Bhanwar Singh alongwith Ugam Singh and Roop Singh rushed towards the place of incident and found Gopal Singh lying on the ground and the accused-respondents armed with the aforesaid weapons were beating Gopal Singh. Even upon seeing the members of the complainant party, the accused-respondent Prem inflicted blow by barchi upon Gopal Singh, accused-respondent Lixmanram inflicted axe blow on the head of Gopal Singh and the rest of the accused-respondents also inflicted lathi blows upon Gopal Singh; the same resulted into blood oozing from the respective body parts of his body.

3.2. Upon hearing the shouts of the complainant party, the accused-respondents fled away from the spot, while saying that the said act was a reaction to the act of Gopal Singh in defaming the family of the accused-respondents. As per the aforesaid report, consequent to the said incident, Gopal Singh became unconscious and later on succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused-respondents.

3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused-respondents before the concerned Magistrate under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC. Since offences charged against the accused-respondents are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bikaner, from where the case was transferred for due trial to the learned Trial Court.

3.4. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against accused-respondent Lixmanram under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and against others (namely, Premram, Kaluram, Kishanram, and Bajranglal) under Sections 148 & 302/149 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.5. During the course of trial, 12 prosecution witnesses were produced and documents Ex. P. 1-22A were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereas on behalf of the defence, one witness was produced and 3 documents were exhibited. Whereafter the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.

3.6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 27.11.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the accused-respondents despite there be