The principle that an acquittal can only be reversed if there is no reasonable doubt regarding guilt, reaffirming the presumption of innocence and legal standards of proof in criminal cases.

Judgment :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 24.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.65/2005 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Singh), whereby the accused-respondent herein was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 498A & 302/306 IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2005 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2013.

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 12.05.2005, one Devi Singh (complainant) submitted a written report (Ex.P.4) before the Aarakshi Kendra (Reserve Centre), Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara alleging therein that one Hemkanwar, wife of the accused-respondent was often being subjected to abuse at the hands of the accused-respondent in drunken state, who was also complainant’s paternal aunt’s son (cousin). It was further alleged that on 11.05.2005 at around 5:00 p.m., the accused-respondent, with an intention to kill Hemkanwar, set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her as a result of which, she got burnt. Thereupon, she was taken to Bhilwara Hospital by Mahendra Singh, Hans Kanwar and Chandra Kanwar. The said incident, as alleged, was informed to the complainant by Hemkanwar herself. The marriage of the accused- respondent with Hemkanwar was solemnized 14-15 years prior to the incident in question and two children were born out of the said wedlock.

3.1. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered under Sections 307 & 498A IPC and the investigation began accordingly. While the investigation was going on, Hemkanwar died under treatment, and the accused-respondent was arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the accused-respondent under Sections 498A & 302/306 IPC before the concerned Court, and after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge, the said charges were read over to the accused-respondent, who denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.2. 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.

3.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 22 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 22) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 29) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, witnesses D.W. 1 & D.W. 2 were examined and document Ex.D.1 was exhibited; whereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.

3.4. 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-respondent herein of the charges framed against him, as above, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.11.2012; against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal as on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence on record, the case against the accused respondent is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further su