An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, illegal, or ignore material evidence. The double presumption of innocence favors the accused, and where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal must be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By way of present appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for short), the appellant – State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.211/1997, whereby the respondent – accused has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302, 354 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under,

2.1 On the fateful day i.e. on 24.07.1997, the respondent – accused had entered into the house of the victim and made illegal demand, which was refused by the victim, therefore, the respondent – accused had tried to outrage the modesty of the victim girl but she tried to escape from him, at that time, the respondent – accused had poured kerosene over her body and set her ablaze and also threatened not to disclose said fact to anyone, however on raising screams, the persons from the surrounding area assembled there and took her to hospital, where she gave complaint, however during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the burn injuries.

2.2 Initially, FIR being C.R. NO.I-87/1997 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 354 and 506(2) of the IPC, however after the death of the victim, Section 302 of the IPC came to be added.

3.2 On the basis of the registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out and on conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed before the court of the learned Magistrate, Bharuch.

3.3. Since the case registered against the appellants - accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after making inquiry about the suppliance of copies of papers, free of cost to the accused as provided under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon satisfaction that the accused have engaged own Advocate for defence committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Bharuch under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be registered as Session Case No.211 of 1997.

3.4 On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the Learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, who had initially framed charge against the accused vide Exh.2 for the alleged offences. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. Plea of the accused came to be recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.5 Thereafter in order to bring home the charges leveled against the respondent – accused, the prosecution has examined 20 prosecution witnesses and also produced 11 documentary evidence, details of which are mentioned in Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the impugned order.

3.6 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Sessions Court explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded his further statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In his further statement, he denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. According to him, he has been roped in a false case.

3.7 At the end of trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order of acquittal, whereby the respondent – accused has been acquitted for the alleged offences.

3. Heard learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. M.R. Bukhari for the respondent – accused.

4. Learned APP Mr. Pandya referred