The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where mere suspicion is insufficient.

C A V Judgment

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/victim arises out of the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.33/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 herein of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') on the basis of benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2015, PW-1 Jeetram Ratre lodged an oral report at Police Station Sariya stating therein that on 02.09.2015, after having dinner, his brother- Parasram Ratre (hereinafter called as 'deceased') along with his family members went to sleep and on the next morning at around 5:00 am, his mother/PW-5 Sushila Ratre, based on the information given by PW-3 Vishakha Ratre, told him about the deceased being left the house at 9:00 pm and did not return. After that, he started searching the deceased and at 5:30 am, he came to know from (PW-7) Hemkumar Ratre that one dead body was lying near Dabri pond, upon which, he along with PW-7 Hemkumar went over there and saw the dead body of deceased-Parasram Ratre and found several grievous injuries over the dead body of deceased which were caused by a sharp edged weapon. On the basis of oral report given by PW-1 Jeetram Ratre, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the unknown person. After that, merg intimation vide Ex.P-3 was recorded and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-8 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Patel conducted the postmortem examination and gave his report vide Ex.P-16. According to him (PW-8) cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to lacerated wound, fracture of trachea and fracture of left carotid artery and left jugular vein and mode of death of deceased was homicidal in nature.

3. During investigation, accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-12 & P-13. Vide Ex.P-8, memorandum statement of accused- Styanand Alias Kekru Ratre was recorded, pursuant to which, one iron Kattha, blood like stained clothes and one micromax mobile phone were siezed vide Ex.P-9. However, no memorandum statement of accused- Raju Ratre was recorded, but vide Ex.P-10, his half T-shirt was seized. Vide Ex.P-11, underwear of deceased- Parasram Ratre was seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report vide Ex.P-21, human blood has been found on the articles 'A (piece of concrete), D (handkerchief), E (Kattha) & I (underwear of deceased)'.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC . The accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents connecting the respondents No.2 & 3 / accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents No.2 & 3 /accused persons have examined none, but exhibited two documents i.e. Exs. D- 1 and D-2.

6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No. 2 & 3 herein of said charge leveled against them.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant/victim would submit that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that PW-3 Vishakha Ratre, wife of the deceased, has specifically stated that on the date of incident, accused persons called the deceased over mobile phone and at their behest, deceased left the house and it is the accused persons who committed the murder of the deceased, but the trial Court di