The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony can justify acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. We have heard Shri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant, and perused the record.

2. The instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.100449 of 2017, titled as State v. Devendra Rajbhar and others , arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section ¾ of D.P Act registered at Police Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh.

3. After full fledged trail, the trial court acquitted all the three accused; (i) Devendra Rajbhar- husband, (ii) Dharmendra Rajbhar- brother-in-law, (iii) Urmila Devi- mother-in-law from the charges framed under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC, alternate charges under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act.

4. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused Devendra Rajbhar, Dharmendra Rajbhar, and Urmila Devi, the State-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the order of acquittal qua aforesaid accused persons.

5. Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the complainant- Nitish Rajbhar approached the police station Tarwa with a tehrir in regard to his sister’s murder by her in-laws. On the basis of which the police initiated the investigation and subsequently the accused persons faced the trial.

For clarity, the contents of tehrir are extracted herein below:

6. After registration of the FIR, the police conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed the charge-sheet against three accused persons named in the F.I.R. viz; (i) Devendra Rajbhar, (ii) Dharmendra Rajbhar, and (iii) Urmila Devi. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions for its trial, and framed the charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence to prove its case:

“(i) Written Report dated 14.10.1987, Ex. Ka-1

(ii) FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 10:15 a.m., Ex. Ka-13 and FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 11:00 p.m., Ex. Ka-2

(iii) Recovery memo of Axe ‘Ahni’, Bamboo & Farsa, Ex. Ka-16

(iv) Recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth, Ex. Ka-17 and Ex. Ka-18

(v) Recovery memo of blood-stained clothes, Ex. Ka-22

(vi) Recovery memo of S.B.B.L. Gun, Ex. Ka-1

(vii) Injury reports, Ex. Ka-2 and Ka-27

(viii) Post-mortem report, Ex. Ka-3

(ix) Permission for prosecution under Section 39 of ARMS ACT , Ex.Ka-8 and Ka-9”

8. The prosecution examined the complainant- Nitish Rajbhar as PW-1; Sheesham Rajbhar as PW-2; sister of the deceased, Bindu Devi as PW-3; mother of the deceased; Dr. Haseen Ahmad, who conducted the postmortem as PW-4; Constable Banvari Yadav, who registered the FIR as PW-5; Arvind Kumar, Nayab Tehsildar who prepared the Panchnama as PW-6; Inspector S.P. Tomar who exhibited the charge-sheet and site plan as PW-7.

9. The complainant Nitish Rajbhar- deceased’s brother- was examined as PW-1. In examination-in-chief, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the impugned FIR, and stated that all the accused persons have committed the murder of his sister as he could not fulfil the dowry demand of gold chain, watch, T.V. and Rs.30,000/- cash. He reiterated and stated that his sister was married with accused Devendra Rajbhar on 09.05.201