The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's identity and involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the quashing of the conviction based on contradictory witness testimonies.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is against the judgment dated 29^th November 2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 60/2001 titled as State vs. Om Prakash . The learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 307 , 326 and 324 of IPC and imposed the punishment which are as under:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts as noted from the record of the trial Court are that a written report dated 23.09.2000, Ex-P1, was submitted by one Suresh Chandra to S.H.O. PS. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand. In the report, he stated that someone had thrown chemical on his son while he was returning home after closing his shop around 11:45 PM. According to him, the incident occurred so fast that he (victim Manish Jain) was unable to understand or identify anyone. The written report dated 23.09.2000, Ex-P1, is reproduced as under:

^^fyf[kr fjiksVZ Jh lqjs'k pUnz }kjk Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk jktuxj ftyk jktlean ¼bZ,Dlih&1½ fnukad 23-9-2000

fnukad 22-9-2000

Jheku Fkkuk vf/kdkjh egksn; th

jktlean ftyk & jktlean

fo"k;%&euh"k ds psgjs ij rstkc Mkyus dh ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ckcr

egksn; th

euh"k tSu iq= Jh lqjs'k pUnz th tSu ¼inekorh Hkkstuky;½ ¼ikyhoky ekdsZV ds lkeus½ ds Åij viuh nqdku can djds 11-45 cts ?kj tkrs le; ekyfu;k pkSd esa fdlh us mlds psgjs ij rstkc Qsad fn;k ftlls mldh vka[kks vkSj psgjs ij cgqr vf/kd izHkko gqvk o iwjs 'kjhj ij vlj QSy x;k ;gka rd fd diM+s rd mlh {k.k rstkc ds izHkko ls ty x;sA ?kVuk bruh rhoz xfr ls ?kVh fd mls fdlh dks le>us o igpkuus dk ekSdk Hkh ugha feykA vkSj gesa ekywe iM+rs gh jktuxj ftyk fpfdRlky; esa bykt gsrw ysdj vk x,A vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd mijksDr ?kVuk ds fo"k; esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokus dh d`ik djkosa ,oa rRi'pkr vko';d dk;Zokgh djds ?kVuk ds eqtfje dk irk yxkus dk d"V djkosaA

,lMh@&

lhy

dk;Zokgh iqfyl ceqdke th-,p- jktlean fnukad 23-09-2000 le; 0-40 ,-,e-

¼1½ ;g fjiksVZ izkFkhZ Jh lqjs'kpUnz iq= ftus'oj yky th tSu mez 48 lky iS'kk lqUnj Vkdht esa lgk;d izca/kd fuoklh ekyfu;k pkSd dkadjksyh Fkkuk jktuxj us ceqdke th-,p- is'k dhA

¼2½ etewu fjiksVZ ls ekeyk vijk/k /kkjk 324@326 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk odwok esa vkuk ik;k tkus ls ekSds ij vko';d dk;Zokgh 'kq: dh Fkkus ij igqap izdj.k dk;e gksxkA

,lMh@&

Fkkuk jktuxj

fnukad&23-9-2000 le;&1-30 ,-,e-

¼1½ ;g fjiksVZ izkFkhZ Jh lqjs'kpUnz tSu }kjk is'k 'kqnk ,-,l-vkbZ- ukFkwflag }kjk Fkkus ij ykdj is'k dhA

¼2½ etewu fjiksVZ ls vijk/k /kkjk 324] 326 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk odq,s esa vkuk ik;k tkus ls eqd- u- 610@2000 tqeZ lnj esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku ,-,l- vkbZ- Jh dj.kflag vkbZ@lh vkW-ih- dkadjksyh ds ftEes fd;k x;kA

¼3½ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- izfr;ka fu;ekuqlkj tkjh dh xbZA

,pbZ&,lMh&,Q

vkbZ&,lMh&ts**

3. On the said written report, Ex-P1, an FIR, Ex-P2, was registered bearing No.610/2000 for offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC against unknown person. The accused was arrested on 01.10.2000. The police conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused appellant.

4. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 324 , 326 and 307 of the IPC on 24.03.2001.

5. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. On the prosecution side, 14 witnesses were produced in evidence which are PW-1 Manish Kumar, PW-2 Suresh Chandra, P