The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the principles governing appeals against orders of acquittal were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Accused persons Krishna Kumar Kulshreshtha, Sudhir Kumar Kulshreshtha and Akhilesh Kumar Kulshreshtha and Smt. Gayatri Devi Kulshreshtha were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1984 arising out of case Crime No. 495 of 1985, P.S. Loha Mandi, District-Agra by the Court of Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra by judgment and order dated 29.4.1987, feeling aggrieved of which this State appeal has been filed.

2. The prosecution story unfolded by the FIR in brief is that Smt. Beena Kumari Kulshreshtha @ Beena Kulshreshtha, daughter of the informant-Guru Dayal Prasad was married with accused Akhilesh Kumar Kulshreshtha on 9.5.1982 and as per his capacity the informant offered dowry to the in-laws of her daughter, however, the accused persons Akhilesh Kumar Kulshreshtha-husband, Krishna Kumar Kulshreshtha-father-in-law, Smt. Gayatri Devi-mother-in-law were dissatisfied with the dowry and Smt. Bina was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by the aforesaid accused persons and also by her brother-in-law Sudhir Kumar Kulshreshtha. The deceased used to make complaint of these incidents to her mother and brother. On 13.11.1982 Girish Chand Kulshreshtha, the nephew of the informant went to the house of the deceased on the occasion of Dipawali and he found her normal and healthy, however, she appeared to be upset. On 15.11.1982 at about 5.15 pm. the informant got the information of the death of his daughter and after reaching the accused persons' house he found her dead. The wife of the informant was shocked and became unconscious. The informant took away his wife to his house and next day morning gave a written report to S.O. Loha Mandi, Agra alleging therein that the in-laws of his daughter have killed her by poisoning.

3. On the basis of the written report Ex.Ka-7, the FIR Ex.Ka-8 was lodged and G.D. Ex.Ka-9 was also prepared.

4. The investigation was handed over to S.I. Rama Shankar Sharma, who performed the proceedings of the investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-10 and subsequently the investigation was conducted by Inspector Shiv Bahadur Singh and then by Deputy S.P. Raj Pal Singh Rana, who recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-11 to the Court.

5. The accused persons appeared before the Court. After the case being committed to the Court of Sessions they were charged under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. They denied of the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW-1 Guru Dayal Prasad the informant, PW-2 Girish Chand Kulshreshtha, cousin of the deceased, PW-3 Rakesh Kulshreshtha brother of the deceased, PW-4 Bhagwan Das, Head Moharir, scribe of the FIR, PW-5 Inspector Shiv Bahadur Singh second I.O of the case and PW-6 Retired Deputy S.P. Raj Pal Singh Rana subsequent I.O.

7. To support the oral evidence, documentary evidence was also relied upon by the prosecution and in documentary evidence list Ex.Ka-1, letters Ex.Ka-2, Ex.Ka-3, Ex.Ka-4, Ex.Ka-5 and Ex.Ka-6, written report Ex.Ka-7, Chik FIR Ex.Ka-8, G.D. Ex.Ka-9 have been filed.

8. Learned trial Court after perusing the entire evidence on record and after hearing the oral submissions of the parties found that no case was made out against the accused persons and the prosecution has utterly failed to connect the accused with the guilt, and accordingly acquitted them of the charges under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper and legal manner. The judgment has been passed in haste. The circumstances of the case were going against the accused persons and the entire allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment of the deceased were proved by the witnesses of fact. Learned trial Judge ignoring it passed the acquittal o