The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions and lack of evidence necessitate acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 37/03 (45/02) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Siyaram & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147 , 148, 447, 323, 324 IPC, in alternative, Sections 324 /149, 326 IPC, in alternative 326/149, 307 IPC, in alternative, Sections 307/149 & 302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302/149 IPC, while extending them the benefit of doubt.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2002 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2004.

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State, are that on 17.08.2002, at around 10:30 a.m., one Jairam (complainant) submitted a written report before the Police Station, Kuchera, alleging therein that on the said date, at around 8:00 a.m., Koja Ram, Siyaram, Bhundaram, Manaram, Manchilal, Birju & others, armed with weapons, went to the field of the complainant party and started uprooting the extra grass from the fields i.e. doing Ninaan. Thereupon, at around 9:00 a.m., when the complainant alongwith his father (Ghevarlal) reached the fields, the complainant’s father asked the accused persons to stop their act of uprooting the extra grass, whereupon, accused- Siyaram asked the complainant party as to why the complainant and his father, came to the field of the accused party, and abused the complainant party.

3.1. It was further alleged that at that time, accused-Siyaram inflicted a blow by Kassi upon the head of the complainant’s father, Kassi blow was also inflicted upon the complainant’s father by accused-Bhundaram, as a result of which the father of the complainant fell on the ground, whereupon Bhanna Ram and Manchilal started beating him with lathi; the complainant tried to save his father, however the accused Bhanna Ram also inflicted a lathi blow on him, whereupon, the alleged act was intervened by Devaram, Arjunram and Bhagaram who saved the complainant and his father, during the course of which, the said Devaram, Arjunram and Bhagaram also sustained injuries.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 447, 323, 307 & 302 IPC, and the investigation began accordingly.

3.3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondents before the competent Court and at the stage of framing of charges, under Sections 147 , 148, 447, 323, 324, in alternative, Sections 324 /149, 326 IPC, in alternative 326/149, 307 IPC, in alternative, Sections 307/149, 302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302/149 IPC, the same were read over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.4. During the course of trial, the statements of 27 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 27) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 47) were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.

3.5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, while finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted the accused-respondents herein of the charges against them, as above, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003, while extending them the benefit of doubt; against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State.

3.6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law as well as facts in acquitting the accused-respondents, whereas prosecution has proved the guilt o