IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This Criminal Leave to Appeal and Appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State, claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this leave to appeal may kindly be accepted. It is, further prayed that appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be allowed, acquittal order dated 13.02.98 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondent may kindly be convicted and sentenced accordingly.”

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

3. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 22.08.1996, a written report was submitted by one Bhanwar Singh (complainant) at around 10:45 a.m., stating that the preceding night at around 12:30 a.m., one Vagtaram Balai came to his house to call him, and when the complainant went outside his house, he saw Hariram Gurjar and Hema Regar standing there. At that time, Vagtaram informed that he heard the shouts coming from the side of a School and that it seemed to Vagtaram that a person is being subjected to beatings. Upon this, the said persons, namely, Bhanwar Singh, Vagtaram Balai, Hariram Gurjar and Hema Regar, departed, and when they reached upto Dang Ka Kuaa, they saw that near the house of one Sawai Ram Gurjar were near Bheruji Temple, Kundan Singh (accused-respondent) was beating Rajmal s/o Mohan Lal Gandhi with a wooden stick.

3.1. It was further stated in the report that Rajmal was crying loudly and begging accused-respondent Kundan Singh to let him go, on which the said group of persons, including the complainant, who were at a certain distance, requested the accused-respondent to release Rajmal, however, the complainant party was threatened by the accused-respondent and was asked not to intervene in the matter, upon which, the complainant party stopped making any endeavour to rescue the said Rajmal. But the complainant party did try to seek help from the other villagers, but when no one came for help, the members of the complainant party left the place of incident.

3.2. It was also stated in the report that on 22.08.1996, Sawairam, Bhanwar Singh, Lal Singh, Nathu Singh and Mohan Singh saw the dead body of Rajmal (deceased), lying near the School; the dead body was lying naked and had injuries all over it and that blood was oozing out from his head. The deceased’s clothes and slippers were found lying on the road and that there were marks of him being dragged. The said act, as per the complainant, was alleged to have been committed by the accused-respondent, going by his (accused’s) suspicion pertaining to an illicit relationship between the deceased and his (accused’s) wife.

3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No.102/96 was registered against the accused-respondent and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC.

3.4. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-Kundan under Section 302 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-respondent, which he denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.5. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 12 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24) in support of its case; in defence, 2 witnesses were produced along with 2 documents (Ex.D. 1-2) in support of their case; whereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded innocence and his false implication in the said 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-respondent, vide the impugned judgment dated 13.02.1998, against which the present appeal h