The appellate court must base decisions on substantive evidence presented at trial, not on pre-trial statements, ensuring the accused's right to a fair process is upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant criminal appeal, instituted under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”), has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 40/2021. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent–accused of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”).

2. Briefly stated, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeal are that, on 06.04.2021, the complainant, Devaram, submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) before the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, alleging that his sister, Anasi Devi, was married to the respondent–accused, Bhutaram, nearly four decades ago. He stated that the matrimonial relationship had been discordant and that the accused had, on an earlier occasion, assaulted Anasi, causing a fracture in her arm. According to the complainant, on the night of 01.04.2021, Anasi Devi and the accused were present in their house situated at a short distance from the complainant’s residence.

2.1 It is alleged that during the night, the accused brutally assaulted Anasi with sticks and sharp-edged weapons, inflicting grievous injuries on her knees, joints, limbs, and vital parts of the body. Her arm, previously fractured, was stated to have been left dangling as a consequence of the beating. On hearing her cries, neighbour Dargaram is said to have reached the spot, by which time Anasi had already succumbed to the assault.

2.2 The complainant further alleged that the accused, in connivance with others, removed the dead body to their residence in Kampala and informed the complainant’s family that Anasi was unwell. When the complainant’s younger brother reached there, he found that the body was already being taken for cremation. According to the complainant, the deceased’s in-laws proceeded to cremate the body in haste with the intention of obliterating all traces of the offence. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Bhadrajun registered FIR No. 53/2021 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned acquittal is founded on conjectures and mechanical rejection of material evidence, suffers from patent perversity. The learned trial Court erred in discarding the prosecution case merely because the eyewitnesses resiled, ignoring that their statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, being public documents admissible under Section 80 of the Evidence Act, carried intrinsic reliability. The circumstantial evidence, including recoveries from the true place of occurrence, the Mauka Naksha, prior conduct of the accused, and the false defence of an alleged fall from a staircase that did not exist, remained wholly unshaken. The Court below overlooked the mandate of Section 7 of the Evidence Act and failed to appreciate the chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably to homicidal death. The judgment thus reflects misdirection in law and misreading of evidence, warranting its reversal and conviction of the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Upon a thorough perusal of the record, it becomes manifest that the appellant is admittedly not