The appellate court emphasizes that reversal of acquittal requires compelling evidence of error in the trial court's judgment has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J

1. The State has filed this Criminal Appeal under section 378 (iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.07.1998 passed by Shri Mahendra Maheshwari, R.H.J.S., Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parbatsar (Rajasthan) in Session Case No. 28/98 (old number 25/95) whereby the sole accused respondent was acquitted. The State has file the present Criminal Appeal on the following grounds:

“i) That learned trial court has gravely erred in law as well as in facts while acquitting the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment is quite illegal, invalid, manifestly erroneous, contrary to the provisions of law and perverse to the material on record which deserves to be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the learned trial court has gravely erred in law as well as in facts in disbelieving the prosecution evidence without any cogent reason which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice and under these circumstances the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

iii) That the learned trial court has not considered the dying declaration of the deceased Chanda Soni which was recorded during the treatment on the police request by the Civil Judge (J.D.) No.7 on dated 11-4-95 in the S.M.S. Hospital. She in her dying declaration has stated that the accusedRam Lal Swami burned her at about 2 O'clock on 31-3-95. It was further stated that the accused-respondent told her that the house has been built by him and has not been transferred to you and threatened her to remove from the house and started abusing. On preventing him from abusing the accused put kerosene over her body and lit the fire and when she cried he carried her inside and poured water over her. It was also stated by her that at the time of her earlier statements she did not take name of the accused due to the reason that the accused threatened him, whereas his husband never quarrels with her. Thus, the learned trial court has not appreciated the dying declaration in right perspective and has ignored the same without giving any cogent reason.

iv) That the learned trial court has not properly considered the statements of prosecution witness Rahul who is minor children of deceased also told that his mother was closed in the room after bruning her. Moreover, p.w.7 has also corroborated the prosecution case but the learned trial court has discarded the statements of prosecution witnesses merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

v) That the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of the matter that the presence of the accused-respondent at the spot is very much proved on the record. Thus, there is no reason to take a contradictory view in acquitting the accused- respondent. Moreover, the medical exami-nation of Ram Lal was made after 15 days from the date of incident in support of his contention that the hands were burnt at the time of saving decea-sed, whereas there is no reason to believe on the medical report produced by the accused-respondent. The Dr. Kamal Bajaj has also stated in his statements that the medical examination was made after 15 to 16 days from the date of incident and therefore the medical report is not believable. Under these circumstances, there was no reason for the learned trial court to ignore the dying declaration of the deceased which is against the settled proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1997 Criminal Law Reporter page 134, 157. Thus, the learned trial court has not applied its judicious mind while acquitting the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt.

vi) That fur