The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the principle that the benefit of doubt must favor the accused.

Judgment

Reserved on : 12/05 /2025

Pronounced on : 22 /05/2025

(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant–State assailing the judgment dated 20.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.37/1996(297/95), whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the present respondents from all the charges levelled against them, while extending the benefit of doubt.

2. It is noted that the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The respondent No.1 was tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149 IPC and the remaining respondents were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, and 302/149 IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged by one Prabhulal (PW-2), alleging that at about 2:30 PM on 24.10.1995, while he and others were celebrating the festival of Deepawali, a verbal altercation occurred between Amra (son of Pema) and Megha (son of Lalu Meena). This altercation escalated into a physical fight during which Megha, who was having feta (a blunt object) in his hand gave a severe blow to Amra and he fell down.

4. It is stated by the Prabhulal (informant) that he along with Ramlal intervened in between Amra and Megha and managed to snatch the weapon from Megha. It is further alleged that Megha then left the scene and went back his home, however, later returned back with the present respondents, who were armed with stones, lathis, knives, and other weapons. The respondents allegedly attacked the complainant and others.

5. Mohan (son of Lalu) is said to have caused knife injuries to Brahma (son of Hakra). On receiving such injuries Brahma fell down and the stabbed injuries leading to protrusion of intestines and immediate death. It is stated that Laxman, son of Lalu, intervened in an attempt to stop the fight, however, Mohan, son of Chatra, who was also carrying a knife, inflicted a stab injury to Laxman's stomach. Upon receiving the injury, Laxman also collapsed. Both Brahma and Laxman succumbed to their injuries and died on the spot. On the basis of said information, the report of investigation was carried out.

6. The prosecution cited Prabhulal (PW-2), Babulal (PW-5), and Amra (PW-8) as eyewitnesses.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the prosecution having established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The following contentions were made:

(i) The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained.

(ii) The statements of the witnesses were fully corroborated by the medical evidence; therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story.

(iii) The trial Court committed an error in giving undue importance to the recovery of the knife, as the recovery has no relevance when there is direct evidence from witnesses who saw the incident.

(iv) It is a case of double murder in day light and accused respondents who armed with knives and other weapon should be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the submission of the State counsel and stated that the trial Court was right in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons for the following reasons:

(i) The panchnama was prepared prior to registration of the FIR.

(ii) The recovery witnesses, mainly Laxman and Daulatram, were not examined in the Court.

(iii) Ramlal was not examined despite being eyewitness.

(iv) Serious contradiction in the submission of Investigating Officer.

(v) Babulal (PW-5) despite being eyewitness was not shown to be present at the time of incident in the panchnama.

(vi) Serious contradiction were found in the statements of eyewitnesses i.e. Prabhulal and Amra.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. At the out