The appellate court may reverse an acquittal if it determines the trial court's findings are perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, reaffirming the reliance on direct eyewitness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–State under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 12.07.2001 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 92/2001, whereby the accused–respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 31.10.1999, complainant Narendra Kumar Vaid (PW-10) submitted a Verbal report at Police Station Bhinder, stating that his brother, Vishnu Kumar, had gone on a bicycle to wash his hands and mouth, and when he did not return, the complainant proceeded towards Mina Darwaja to search for him. From there, along with Prakash (PW-05), when he reached at Aam Road, Ber Talai Wali Magari, ahead of Bikhaliyon Ka Khera, he saw his brother Vishnu coming towards the field of Narendra Vaid. The accused–respondent, Narendra Vaid, was following him with a knife in his hand and inflicted two knife blows on the backside of Vishnu, causing him to fall down. When Vishnu attempted to get up and run, the accused again inflicted a knife blow on his abdomen, resulting in profuse bleeding. Upon hearing their cries and seeing them approach, the accused–respondent fled from the place of occurrence. Vishnu succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It was further stated that the wife of the accused, Smt. Pyari Bai (PW-06), was present in a nearby field, and the motive behind the murder was suspicion regarding an illicit relationship between the deceased and Smt. Pyari Bai.

3. On the basis of the above verbal report, a formal FIR No. 140/1999 (Exhibit P.16) was registered at Police Station Bhinder, Udaipur against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC.

4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned ACJM, Kanod, District Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Udaipur, and, thereafter, transferred to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’).

5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC to the accused-respondent, who denied the same and claimed trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-18.

7. The statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The accused-respondent lead two defence witnesses, namely DW-1 Moti Lal and DW-2 Sarif Mohammad.

8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, acquitted the accused-respondent as aforesaid vide judgment dated 12.07.2001.

9. Being aggrieved against the order of Acquittal dated 12.07.2001, the state – Appellant prefers appeal.

10. Hence the present appeal.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant–State submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality and perversity in acquitting the accused–respondent of the charges levelled against him. It was contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, unsuppor