In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence that meets stringent criteria.

JUDGMENT :

BHUWAN GOYAL J.

1. The appellant – State of Rajasthan has preferred instant leave to appeal under Section 419(i)(iii) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.20/2021 (C.I.S. No.15/2022) titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Lokesh Mehra", whereby accused-respondent was acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE by extending benefit of doubt.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present leave to appeal are that on 09.11.2019, complainant Gangaram Bairwa submitted a written report (Ex.P/22) to the police at the scene of the occurrence to the effect that his son Rajendra Kumar who had gone from home with Dhoji and Gulab about 3 or 4 days ago, whose dead body was found today on 09.11.2019 in the well of Surajbhan son Rewadram. Both the persons Dhoji and Gulab and Lokesh son of Deshraj Bairwa murdered his son and thrown him in the well. Lokesh Kumar had an illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law Radha Devi etc.

3. On the basis of said report (Ex.P/22), the F.I.R. No.277/2019 dated 09.11.2019 (Ex.P/23) came to be registered at the Police Station Raini, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 201 , 120-B & 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short "I.P.C." hereinafter) and Section 3 of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "S.C./S.T. Act" hereinafter) and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 201 & 302 of I.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar, 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, Rajgarh, District Alwar (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 and 201 34 of I.P.C. The accused-respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and got documents exhibited from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/39 and Article-1 to Article-7 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 witnesses gave false evidence; he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondent did not produce any oral evidence but exhibited Ex.D/1 document 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 23.02.2024 acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offences, as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present leave to 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 submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of murder of deceased Rajendra Kumar by the accused-respondent. He has also submitted that place of incident was verified at the instance of accused-respondent and bloodstained knife and shirt of the accus