The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view unless the trial court's decision demonstrates illegality or perversity. Evidence must meet the highest standard for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 20.04.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, District Barmer (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 3/99 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Neku Khan & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147 , 302 read with Sections 149 & 201 IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1998 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2000.

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State, are that one Samme Khan (complainant) lodged an FIR (Ex.13) dated 04.08.1998 at around 9:00 a.m., before the SHO, Police Station Mandli, alleging therein that on 03.08.1998, his father (Wali Khan) went to Patodi in connection with some work, but when on the same date, he (complainant’s father) did not return, the complainant and his mother became worried, in particular, on count of enmity and litigation between the complainant and the accused parties.

3.1. It was further alleged that in such circumstances, the complainant went to search for his father and when he reached the Dhani of Bhopa Ram Jat, the complainant saw his father coming, whereafter, both of them departed from the said place; while the complainant and his father were on their way and reached near “Paani Ka Wala” they saw the accused-respondents coming on a camel-cart. On reaching near the complainant and his father, accused-respondent Nekukhan said that there the enemies have come, and while saying so, the accused-respondents ran after the complainant and his father.

3.2. As alleged, at the relevant time, accused-respondents Neku Khan and Jaanukhan were armed with lathis and all the accused- respondents herein, with an intention to kill the complainant’s father, caught-hold of him and started beating and dragging him; thereafter, on being asked by his father, the complainant ran away from the spot, and returned back to his Dhani. The said incident, as reported, had happened at around 9:00 p.m. on 03.08.1998.

3.3. It was also alleged that later, the complainant and his younger brother Kammu Khan alongwith their mother searched for Wali Khan (father of complainant) the whole night, but failed to find him nearby, whereupon all the three returned back to their Dhani.

3.4. Thereafter, in the morning on 04.03.1998, at around 6:00 a.m., one Suraj Singh arrived at the Dhani of Shanker Singh and informed him that Wali Khan (father of complainant) had been killed by the accused-respondents and his body was lying in the fields of accused-respondent Neku Khan; the said information thereafter was conveyed to the complainant party by Shankar Singh, and thereupon, they reached the fields of Neku Khan and saw the body of Wali Khan (deceased). It was further alleged that at that time, accused-respondent Jaanukhan was standing near the body of the deceased, who told the complainant party that in case any police action is initiated, the members of the complainant party would be killed in the same manner.

3.5. On the basis of the aforementioned FIR, a case was registered under Sections 302 , 201, 143 & 149 IPC and the investigation began accordingly. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused- respondents under Sections 302 , 201, 364 & 147 IPC before the concerned Court, and after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge, the charge under Sections 147 , 302/149 and 201 were read over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.6. Owing to the nature of offences charged, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherefrom the case was transferred to the learned Trial Court for the necessary trial.

3.7. During the course of trial, the statements of 20 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 20)