The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the acquittal by the Trial Court was justified due to insufficient evidence.

Judgment :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 06.02.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.99/96 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Premsingh & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Section 302 read with Sections 149 , 147 & 498A IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

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 Balchand (complainant) lodged an FIR on 29.06.1990 before the Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Later, the complainant on 07.09.1990 submitted a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur wherein it was alleged that he had no faith in the police authorities and thus, he had an apprehension that the case would not be investigated in a fair manner.

3.1. The said learned Court called for a report and on 19.12.1990, the SHO of the Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur submitted the final report in the matter before the said Court. Thereupon, the learned Court initiated proceedings under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., whereafter, on 03.06.1996, took cognizance against the accused-respondents under Sections 147 , 302 read with Sections 149 & 498A IPC.

3.2. As per the complaint (Ex.P.5), marriage of sister (Jasoda) of the complainant was solemnized with accused-respondent Pukhraj 12-13 years prior to the incident in question and out of the said wedlock, five children (girls) were born. It was further alleged that 3-4 years prior to lodging of the complaint, the accused threatened Jasoda (deceased) that in case of birth of another girl child, she would be ousted from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Jasoda (deceased) gave birth to another girl child. The Matrimonial relationship worsened, and when the said child was only two years old, Jasoda was subjected, at the hands of the accused, to beatings and abuses.

3.3. It was also alleged that despite intervention of the complainant party, and assurances being given by the accused party to not repeat such the acts of cruelty and such behavior in future, the accused-respondents did not stop, rather they started making dowry demands from Jasoda (deceased), and on her failure to do so, she was subjected to further acts of cruelty and abuses.

3.4. It was further alleged that on 28.06.1990 at around 7:00 p.m., while the complainant was going to his home from Sojati Gate, accused-respondent Prem met him and informed that Jasoda(deceased) got slight burns on her abdomen, whereupon the complainant went to the matrimonial home of Jasoda(deceased), and saw her dead body, which was completely burnt. Thereupon, as per the complaint the accused party apologized for the said act, while saying that the same was done mistakenly.

3.4.1. As alleged, the younger daughter of deceased and the neighbours informed the complainant that the accused- respondents, after pouring kerosene, set Jasoda (deceased) on fire.

3.5. Owing to the nature of the crime involved, the matter was committed to the Court of Session, wherefrom the case was transferred to the learned Trial Court, for the necessary trial.

3.6. During the course of trial, the statements of 6 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 6) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 12) were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, documents (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9) got exhibited, for examination; 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.

3.7. 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 he