The acquittal of accused in criminal cases is justified if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a plausible interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's findings.

Judgment :

SUNIL BENIWAL, J.

1. The appellant-State has laid challenge to the judgment and order dated 03.04.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No.26/2005, by which the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused from the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. The facts in brief are that on 17.05.2025, the complainant, Nakhta Ram, submitted a report to the S.H.O. of P.S. Sankada alleging, inter alia, that the marriage of his sister, Smt. Rukma (since deceased), was solemnized with accused-respondent No. 1, Panna Ram, about 14 years ago. The relationship between them remained harmonious for about 10 years; thereafter, illicit relations developed between the accused-respondent No. 1 and the wife of Indra Ram (accused-respondent No. 5). This came to the knowledge of his sister, and when she complained about it, she was told to keep silent or face threats to her life. When his sister narrated this to their mother and other family members, a panchayat meeting was convened. However, the accused- respondent again threatened to kill his sister. On 14.04.2005, when he and his cousin brother Gokala ram were present at their sister’s in-laws’ house, they heard noise around midnight. Upon hearing such noise, they got up and came out and saw that the accused-respondents were beating their sister. Accused- respondent No. 2, Chautha Ram, struck her on the head with an axe; accused-respondent No. 1, Panna Ram, inflicted a sword blow, while three other women held her down, causing her to fall. When they tried to intervene, they were threatened with death and fled barefoot, traveling about 50-60 kilometers to reach their village. Thereafter, family members gathered, and on 16.04.2005, they went to their sister’s in-laws’ house. When they inquired about the deceased, they were told that she had died due to illness and that her last rites had been performed.

2.1 Upon this report, the police registered a case and after investigation, filed a chargesheet under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against accused-respondent No. 1, and under Section 201 of the IPC against the remaining accused-respondents, thereby commencing the trial.

2.2 The learned trial Court, after hearing, framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against accused-respondent No. 1, Panna Ram, and under Section 201 of the IPC against the other accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.3 The prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. Thereafter, the accused- respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6.

2.4 The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused- respondents by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2006. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has challenged the acquittal of the accused-respondents on the following grounds:-

(i) The learned trial Court committed a grave error in failing to appreciate the fact that PW-1 Nakhta Ram and PW-2 Gokala Ram were eyewitnesses who saw the incident in which their sister, the deceased Rukma, was murdered by the respondent-accused.

(ii) The extra-judicial confession made by Chautha Ram was not considered trustworthy by the trial Court, although such a statement was made in the presence of 5-6 persons.

(iii) The circumstances under which the deceased was burnt after being killed in the house of the accused are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-respondents.

(iv) The fact that on 3-4 previous occasions, panchayat meetings were held to resolve the dispute between accused-respondent No. 1 Panna Ram and the deceased Rukma, this fact was also established by witnesses, however, the same was disregarded by the learned trial Court, which instead gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused-respondents.

(v) The accused-respondents’ failure to inform the deceased’s parents prior to her funeral itse