The standard of proof in criminal cases demands that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, failing which acquittal is warranted.

1. The present appeal filed under S.378(1)((3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2002, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under S.302, S.120B, S.34 and S.114 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ("IPC" for short) read with S.135(1) of Bombay Police Act , 1951.

2. The brief case of the first informant, as alleged in the FIR is that, one of the accused was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased namely Raghuvir i.e. son of the complainant. On 07.05.2003, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the accused No.3 came to the residence of the deceased and called him to Kamalpuri Three Roads, with an intention to commit crime, where a physical altercation took place and as alleged, during the fight, accused Nos.2 and 3 have restrained the deceased and accused No.1 inflicted knife blow at the left thigh of the deceased, which caused death of the deceased.

3. In pursuance of the above allegations, an FIR came to be lodged with Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad, bearing I - C.R. No.159 of 2022 dated 07.05.2002 under S.302, S.120B, S.34 and S.114 of the IPC read with S.135(1) of Bombay Police Act . During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas and thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges vide Exh.1 against the respondents - accused for the aforesaid offence, wherein the respondents - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and in order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Trial Court. The same are as under:

ORAL EVIDENCES

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

5. Thus, the prosecution has examined the witnesses as well as the police witness, which according to the prosecution have bring home the charge in support of their case. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence led by them before the Trial Court. At the end of the evidence, necessary pursis was filed before the Trial Court declaring closer of the evidence. The Trial Court has thereafter, proceeded to record the further statements of the accused under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after evaluating the same arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondents - accused and accordingly, acquitted them.

6. At the outset, learned APP has submitted that despite there being clear evidence by the prosecution that the offence under S.302 of the IPC was committed by the respondents - accused, the Trial Court has acquitted them. It is submitted that there were injuries on the body parts of the deceased, which have been supported by the medical examination and hence, to discard such evidence, no cogent reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the respondents - accused. It is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under S.302 of the IPC.

7. Learned APP has further submitted that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to law and evidence on record and are erroneous. It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents - accused, as the evidence produced on record, have not been pro