The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness credibility is compromised by factors such as darkness and delays in testimony.

Judgment :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

1. The appellant – State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.08/1996 (74/1993) (State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyadhar @ Badru), whereby accused-respondent was acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 01.10.1992, complainant – Omprakash (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to Shri Bhagwan Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Nawalgarh at the place of incident to the effect that tonight at about 12 o'clock, he was sleeping in his house, suddenly he heard noise of women and children in Hari Singh's mansion (Haweli), then he woke up and called Hariprasad and Sheokaran. All three of them came to Hari Singh's mansion, the door was closed, sound of hitting was coming from inside, therefore, Sheokaran and Prakash climbed up the mansion from behind. After taking down the door, they came inside, then Vidyadhar who had a Rapari (Gandasi) in his hand, was beating Subhita badly. When he climbed the roof to escape after seeing them, then Sheokaran and others caught him; they brought him down to the courtyard from the roof, then they saw with the battery, Subhita was lying in the courtyard of the mansion in a pool of blood, she had several injuries on her head, neck, hands, mouth and face; there were three children on the cot, who were screaming. They saw them, they found that children were having severe injuries on their heads, necks and hands and blood was flowing; then many people from the village gathered, they caught Vidhadhar and made him sit outside. Subhita had passed away, He asked to make a phone to report to the police station, now you came to the site etc.

3. On the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. No.184/1992 (Ex.P/13) came to be registered at the Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, minor Ankur died during treatment. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 , 326, 307 & 324 of I.P.C. before the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondent and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘learned trial court’ hereinafter).

4. After hearing arguments on the point of charges, trial court framed charges against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. The accused-respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and got documents exhibited from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/28 to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he denied and stated that prosecution evidence was false; there was dispute over agricultural field, he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondent did not produce any oral evidence but got exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6 in his defence.

5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment dated 11.06.1998, acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offences, as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State before this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – State of Rajasthan has submitte