The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition are being decided by this common judgment as they arise out of same judgment dated 24.02.2001 passed by the trial Court.

2. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 399/2001 has been filed by the appellant–State, whereas D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.375/2001 has been filed by the complainant-Randhir challenging the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.20/2000 (Old No. 67/2000) (State of Rajasthan vs. Dalip Singh) vide which accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of present appeal and revision petition are that complainant–Randhir (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/10) to SHO Police Station Guda Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu on 12.12.1999 to the effect that his younger brother Rohtas was working on Gadiya Dharmkanta at Jhunjhunu since past one and a half year. He did not come home for past 5-6 days. He used to go to his sister, who was married in Udawas. Yesterday evening, he left Dharmkanta and it was heard that Rohtas and Babulal were accompanying him. Today morning at about 7.00 a.m., Amar Singh came to him and informed that a man was lying dead near the tank of the village. The complainant went there and saw that his brother Rohtas was lying dead. There was a wound like cut on his head and he was eaten by dogs. It was mentioned in the report that some unknown persons had killed his brother and threw him there. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.330/1999 (Ex.P/18) was registered for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. before the competent Court and competent Court committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against accused-respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Accused-respondent denied charges and claimed for trial. Prosecution produced as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his defence, he got exhibited the police statements as Ex. D1 to D3. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court passed judgment and order dated 24.02.2001 acquitting the accused-respondent for the alleged offence. Hence, this criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition have been preferred by the appellant-State and the petitioner-complainant, respectively.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant have jointly submitted that prosecution produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of offence by the accused-respondent. This fact was duly corroborated from recovery of article used in the commission of offence i.e. battery light at the instance of the accused- respondent, but despite the trial Court disbelieved the testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses, misread the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent without any cogent reason. Therefore, they have prayed that criminal appeal filed by the appellant-State and the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant may be allowed and the accused-respondent may be convicted and sentenced for alleged offence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent while supporting the judgment and order passed by the trial Court has submitted that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-respondent. The trial Court after appreciating the entire material available on record rightly passed the judgment and order acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offence, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. We have considered the argume