Point of Law: An appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, presumption of innocence is available to him under fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law - Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by trial court.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by Smt. Ram Shree who is complaining against the acquittal order dated 3 December 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 588 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 675 of 2009 (State Vs. Bhai Lal), under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that accused Bhai Lal had given an application to Police Station Bilsanda on 25 June 2009 mentioning therein that he had married his daughter Sunita with Bharat Lal. She had one child from that wedlock and she died. Thereafter, he married his second daughter, namely, Surja Devi with Bharat Lal. Bhai Lal had asked him to send Surja Devi to his house 7-8 days prior from the date of occurrence of the incident but Surja Devi denied to go there. Bharat Lal had left the house and he consumed poison due to which he died in Gauhaniya and his dead body was found hanging from a pakadtree. The local police reached the spot and the dead body was taken into custody. Panchayatnama was done and the body was sent for post mortem. After post mortem Case Crime No. 675 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged on 27 June 2009 and the investigation started. The mother of the deceased Bharat Lal filed an application on 27 June 2009, addressed to Police Station, Bilsanda, wherein she had mentioned that her son was married in Village Navdiya Marauri, with the daughter of Bhai Lal. She had four year old child and her daughter Sunita died prior to three years after her death. The younger sister of Sunita was married to Bharat Lal. Surja Devi was studying in Class -VII. She used to come to the house of Smt. Ram Shree. Surja Devi had gone to the house of her father prior to 10 days. Bharat Lal had gone to take her on Wednesday 24 June 2009. The body of Bharat Lal was found in village Firsa Pastaur at road side on 25 June 2009. She went to the place of occurrence. The panchayatnama was conducted. She suspected that Bhai Lal and Surja Devi together killed her son. She had further stated that Bharat Lal had no good relation with Surja Devi. Surja Devi usually would live in her village. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Bhai Lal and Surja Devi under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

3. The Court summoned the accused. The charges were framed for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges. The prosecution side led the evidences of P.W. -1 Ram Shree, P.W. -2 HCP Siyaram Rathaur, P.W. -3 Phoolchandra, P.W.-4 Smt. Reshma Devi, P.W. -5 Shankar Lal, P.W. -6 S.I. Bhoopal Singh and P.W.-7 Dr. S.P. Singh.

4. P.W.-1 stated in her statement in examination in chief that Bharat Lal was her son in law and he was married to Sunita Devi earlier but after death of Sunita Devi he was married to her younger daughter Surja Devi. Surja Devi was not happy with Bharat Lal and she did not take care of him, due to which there was quarrelsome and bitter atmosphere in the house, and she usually lived in her father's house. Bharat Lal had gone to take back Surja Devi but she refused and did not return. Bharat Lal and the accused quarreled throughout night. Bharat Lal was not given food and his dead body was found, accused had murdered him. She lodged the F.I.R. through Ram Kishan who had submitted the written application (tahreer).

5. P.W. -2 HCP Siyaram Rathaur admitted that he lodged the report on the basis of the complaint. P.W. -3 Phoolchandra and P.W. -4 Smt. Reshma Devi were declared hostile, they did not support the prosecution version. P.W. -5 Shankar Lal has supported the prosecution version stating that he was going to Bilsanda Market on a bicycle and on reaching Gauhaniya, at the place of occurrence, near a pakadtree, at 10 a.m., he saw that the deceased Bharat Lal was lying on the ground and his bicycle was lying nearby. Surja Devi was pressing the chest of Bhara