The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.67/94 (State vs Daria Khan & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302, 498A, 120B & 201 IPC, while giving them the benefit of doubt.

2. At the outset, Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan for Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned GA cum AAG, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, which reflects that on count of demise of the respondent No.3-Lehra and respondent No.6-Pathan Khan, the instant appeal qua them stood abated on the said date itself. He has also produced before this Court a report dated 18.09.2024 received from the Police Station, Sankra, District Jaisalmer, wherein it has been mentioned that apart from the said accused-respondents i.e., Lehra & Pathan Khan, accused-respondents Anwar Khan, Ibrahim, Dariya Khan & Dole Khan have also already expired. Thus, in light of the same, the instant appeal qua accused-respondents Anwar Khan, Ibrahim, Dariya Khan & Dole Khan also stands abated. The said report dated 18.09.2024 is taken on record.

2.1. Accordingly, the present adjudication is made only to the extent of surviving accused-respondents namely, Daria Khan s/o Karim Khan, Smt. Kachi, Gopeh Khan and Kuchar Khan.

3. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, are that on 08.08.1994, Jiye Khan (complainant) made an oral information before the Reserve (Aarakshi) Centre, Sakra, District Jaisalmer, stating therein that Smt. Kamla (the deceased, niece of the complainant), was married off to one Daria Khan (accused-respondent) 5 years prior to the date of incident and that thereafter, she was murdered by her husband and the in-laws, by administering poison. The said information was received by the complainant when he visited one Kodhu Khan in the Luna village; whereupon after receiving the information, the complainant asked Kodhu Khan to visit the in-law’s village viz., Ola and ascertain the truth of the said information. Thereafter, Kodhu Khan visited the village and got the same information confirmed by Tagaram, Aukarram Darji, Bagaram and Tejaram that Smt. Kamla had died under unnatural circumstances; however, later on said persons informed that she had been murdered and her dead body had been buried without informing her family.

4.1. It was also mentioned in the said report that the deceased Smt. Kamla on earlier occasions have also confessed of her being subjected to mental torture and beatings by her husband and in-laws, in pursuance to the demand dowry and also, that her husband wanted to solemnize second marriage.

4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned oral information, an FIR (Ex.P./16) was lodged at 8 PM on 08.08.1994 at Police Station Sakra, Jaisalmer and thereafter, the investigation commenced accordingly. During the course of investigation, the body of Smt. Kamla (deceased) was taken out of the grave and was sent for postmortem, whereupon the cause of death was found out to be poisoning. Subsequent to this, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201, 120 B, and 498A, of IPC against the accused-respondents, and owing to the nature of the offence involved the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court for the trial; and thereafter, the matter was transferred to the learned Trial Court for due trial, accordingly.

4.3. During the course of trial, the evidence of 22 prosecution witnesses were recorded and Exhibits 1-34 were exhibited on behalf of the appellant-State; whereas, the defence placed 2 exhibits on record fo