In criminal appeals, courts uphold acquittals unless there is clear evidence of error in the trial court's reasoning or a definitive finding of guilt based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 21.11.2001, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (Sessions Judge), Hanumangarh, in Cr. Case No.01/1997, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 459, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 02.10.1996, a parcha bayan was given by the complainant Kaur Singh (PW-12) to Shri Tara Chand, SHO PS Goluwala at Government Hospital, Pillibanga to the effect that when complainant was working at a flour mill near his home with Sawan Singh (PW-2) and Prakash (PW-3) and his wife, Angrej Kaur, was cooking inside the house, the complainant saw Balel Singh entering his home with a wooden stick and being suspicious of his intentions due to an old animosity between their families, he immediately ran towards the house. He found that Balel Singh had already struck his wife with the stick. Hearing the commotion, others gathered, and Balel Singh fled the scene with the weapon. The complainant and others then took his wife to the hospital, where she was declared dead.

3. On the said parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 459, 302 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act.

4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 459, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act to the accused respondent. He denied the charge and sought trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

6. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.

7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 21.11.2001 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 459, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Hence this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-respondent.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has not seen the complete record of the case and has also failed to appreciate the statement of the witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under Sections 459, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. It is further contended that though material witnesses have been declared hostile, but the complainant-husband Kaur Singh (PW-12) in his statement has specifically deposed that when his wife was cooking food at home, at the time, the accused- respondent all of a sudden gave a stick blow on the head of his wife, which resulted in her death. Learned PP submits that statement of the complainant (PW-12) itself is sufficient to convict the accused-respondent. But the learned trial court completely discarded the statement of the complainant (PW-12) and other evidence and acquitted the accused-respondent. It is submitted that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, nor has applied its judicious mind, which resulted into loss of substantial justice. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per se illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that in this case, material witnesses PW-1 Shankerlal, PW-2 Sawan Singh, PW-3 Om Prakash @ Prakash and PW-5 Dara Singh, have