Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant- State under Section 378 (i) & (iii) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against accused-respondent Nanu S/o Shri Hari Shankar, challenging the judgment dated 16.02.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 110/1996 arising out of FIR No.65/96, lodged at police station Lohariya, Banswara whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 450 of the IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case on 06.03.1996, one Shri Hatu (PW-02) submitted a verbal report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Lohariya stating that on the previous evening, at about 4:00 PM, his wife, Smt. Dev Kanwar, was preparing tea at their home, while he was sitting at the Padsal. The Adivashi villagers were playing Holi-Ger at Holi Chowk in the village. At that time, Nanu, S/o Shanker, came there with an unsheathed sword in his hand, started abusing, and said ^^jkaM] vkt rq>s tku ls [kRe djrk gw¡] rw lHkh dks Mjkrh gSA** Thereafter, he entered in the house and inflicted a sword blow on the abdomen of Dev Kanwar with the intention to kill her. On withdrawing the sword, her intestines protruded. Upon hearing her cries, Ramu, Rameng, and other villagers reached at the spot and caught hold the accused–respondent. Dev Kanwar was taken to the hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, Dev Kanwar succumbed to her injuries.

3. On the basis of the above verbal report, a formal FIR No. 65/96 (Exhibit P.03) was registered at Police Station, Lohariya, Banswara against the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 452, 326, and 504 IPC. During the course of investigation, Dev Kanwar succumbed to her injuries accordingly; the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 302, 450, and 504 IPC against the accused-respondent before the concerned court where from the case was committed to the sessions court.

5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 & 450 IPC to the accused-respondent, who denied the charge and sought for trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-16.

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 did not lead any defence evidence, and the defence evidence was accordingly closed.

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 16.02.1999.

9. Being aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated 16.02.1999, the State – appellant preferred the present appeal.

10. Learned Public Prosecution 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. The impugned judgment is contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. He further submitted that the learned trial court has erred in law and on facts in disbelieving the prosecution story without properly appreciating the evidence brought on record. The judgment t