In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted.

This private Revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 377 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C.

2. The occurrence took place on 22-5-1990 at about 7 P.M. in Vairavikinaru Village. The prosecution case is that the deceased Suyambulingam and his wife PW-1 came to the shop of one Perumal Nadar to purchase articles required for their daily use and thereafter, they went to the shop of PW-3 for purchasing some more articles and thereafter when they were returning to their house, the accused/respondents questioned the deceased Suyambulingam as to how he had arranged for exhibiting a Video film in the Street, for which, the deceased answered that he need not ask the permission of anybody and in the word quarrel, the respondents/accused cut the deceased with Aruval and knife causing fatal injuries and PW-1 and others when took him to the hospital at Nagercoil he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, on the message sent from the Hospital to the Police Station, PW-10. recorded the statement Ex. P.10 from PW-1 and investigation started. PW-15 examined the injuries on the deceased in the Headquarters hospital at Nagercoil and PW-14 did the post mortem. PWs. 1 to 4 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, of whom, PW-2 turned hostile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on going through the evidence of these witnesses has found that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence of the eye witnesses created a doubt in his mind and therefore acquitted the accused.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner Mr. A. C. Chellaiah submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the ocular evidence in this case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, but the Court below without giving proper weight to the evidence of the eye-witnesses has given more credence to the opinion evidence of the Doctor PW-14, for the acquittal of the accused persons and further for the failure on the part of the Police Officers in not producing the FIR given by the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have given importance entertaining suspecion about the prosecution case leading to the acquittal of the accused persons.

4. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner refers to the evidence of the three eye-witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 4 who, according to him, have cogently narrated the occurrence and the high handed action of the accused persons using the lethal weapons against the deceased in causing fourteen cut injuries, of which, the head injuries were fatal and the Court below was not justified in rejecting the testimony of these three witnesses and according to the learned counsel, the reasons given by the lower Court for rejecting the testimony of these witnesses is unacceptable and therefore the order of the acquittal is to be set aside. He also submitted that though the FIR given by the first accused was not produced by the prosecution, this document is available in the Magistrate Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have summoned this document for his perusal and therefore the Court below was not right in commenting upon the non production of the FIR given by the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has given certain reasons for not accepting the prosecution case and according to the learned Sessions Judge the evidence placed by the prosecution before him had created considerable doubt in his mind as to the crime alleged against the accused persons and that, the evidence discloses that the deceased was the aggressor for this occurrence and therefore the accused had the right of private defence. So taking into consideration of the suspecious circumstances, he gave the benefit of doubt to the accused for their acquittal. N