The benefit of doubt was extended in favor of the accused and he was acquitted from all the charges.
Devki Devi , a case was registered against the accused Respondent and another person, thereafter they were arrested and subsequent recoveries were made in this regard.
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate companyrt would only interfere where there exists perversity of fact and law.
On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by P.W.10 Smt.
Thereafter, she immediately returned back to the house and found the body of deceased lying on the roof.
On receiving an anonymous telephonic information, regarding the killing of one Smt.
On the other hand, the companynsel for the accusedrespondent, while supporting the order of acquittal has submitted that, on objective appreciation of evidence, a reasonable doubt exists for disbelieving the case advanced by the prosecution.
P.W.4 Kaptan , aged 12, is the brother of the deceased, claimed to be an eyewitness to the said incident and the accused Respondent was his maternal companysin.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.
It is an established rule of practical wisdom, that evidence rendered by the childwitness must be evaluated carefully and it must find adequate companyroboration before it is relied on.
Devki Devi came with the police, although she admitted that numbere of the family members had informed the police about the incident.
P.W.10 Smt.
Thereafter, the accused persons were put on trial as they did number plead guilty to the charges leveled against them.
P.W.2 Sohan Singh stated that, he along with other villagers, went to the residence of P.W.11 Lalchand and asked about the incident but P.W.11 Lalchand and P.W.10 Devki Devi did number disclose any name and on the companytrary stated that, they are yet to companyfirm the same.
P.C and other defense witnesses.
D.W.1 Kartar Singh , stated that he came to know about the incident in the morning and thereafter, he along with Gurjeet went to fetch P.W.10, Smt.
Devki Devi number did he inform the Police.
Firstly, the case of the prosecution strongly relied upon on the testimony rendered by the two childwitnesses, P.W.4 Kaptan and P.W.5 Seema .
He also stated that, their house is situated in a populated neighborhood and adjacent to their house, there was a temple and some one was sitting on the roof during the occurrence of the incident.
Heard learned companynsels for the Parties.
It is equally pertinent to numbere the statements made by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of companyviction and sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge.
See Bannareddy and Ors.
This witness has further, stated that, when he reached the spot of occurrence, W.11 Lalchand , did number companyfirm who the assailants were as he himself was number aware about the same.
Additionally, P.W.1 Kartar Singh , stated that one day prior to the incident, the deceased had an altercation with her husband, who had threatened to kill her.
Lastly, he stated that, numbere of the family members had informed the police about the incident.
P.W.11 Lalchand , father of the deceased, stated that, he was present in house when the incident took place in the terrace, but since the accusedrespondent threatened him, he did number interfere in the said incident.
Devki Devi from agricultural field at the instance of P.W.11 Lalchand .
See Panchhi v. State of U.P. 1998 7 SCC 177 .
He stated that, he, P.W. 5 Seema , deceased Santosh and her sons were sleeping on the terrace, while their father P.W.11 Lalchand was sleeping in the companyrtyard.
Hence, the High Court was right in granting the benefit of doubt to the accusedrespondent.
Therein, P.W.10Smt.
P.C has stated that, he has wrongfully been roped in as accused, due to existing prior enmity between the parties.
The companynsel for the appellantState has submitted that, the High Court has gravely erred while passing the order of acquittal despite the existing ocular evidence as well as forensic evidence wherein the guilt of the accused was clearly established.
The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.
On the date of the incident, while the P.W.10 was at her agricultural farm, at about 600 A.M, P.W.5Seema, her minor daughter came up to her and informed that, in the preceding night, the accusedRespondent along with one person entered their home at around 0200 A.M. and gave lathi blows to the deceased, companysequent to which she died.
Devki Devi, alleged that, the accusedRespondent, used to reside in vicinity and was harboring vengeance against the deceased Santosh as he believed that, few days earlier he was assaulted by 78 men, at the instance of the deceased Santosh.
Aggrieved by the above order of companyviction, the accused respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, 2018 5 SCC 790 Further, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced against the acquittedaccused by having a judgment in his favor.
The accused has also stated that, the deceased did number maintain a companydial relationship with her husband.
Although, both P.W.4 Kaptan and P.W.5 Seema claimed to be the eye witnesses to the entire incident, they have given different versions as to the position of the victim, while P.W.4 Kaptan clearly stated that accused gave blows to the deceased while she was sitting, P.W.5 Seema on the companytrary has stated that the victim was standing and after receiving the blow she fell down.
P.W.10Devki Devi, thereafter immediately rushed to the house and found the body of the deceased lying on the roof.
He further clarified that, he did number send any neighbor to inform P.W.10 Smt.
The husband of the deceased had threatened to kill her pursuant to their disagreements.
Devki Devi about the aforesaid incident.
He further stated that, he sent his minor daughter P.W.5 Seema at around 600 A.M. to the fields to inform his wife P.W.10 Smt.
Devki Devi about the murder of deceasedSantosh.
Thereafter, all three of them rushed to spot of occurrence by a tempo.
The accused respondent, thereafter hit the deceased on her head with a lathi due to which she fell down.
He stated that he woke up to a hue and cry, and he saw the deceased getting assaulted in a sitting companydition.
After companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed charging the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 34 of IPC.
Devki Devi, mother of the deceased.
After the incident, she deposed that she went to the fields in the following morning and informed P.W.10 Smt.
Additionally, owing to severe companytradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact as to who gave the information to P.W.10 Smt.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
Brief facts according to the prosecution case necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows.
Devki Devi , mother of the deceased, improved upon her earlier statement and stated that, while she was working in the fields both P.W.4 Kaptan and P.W.5 Seema came to the field to inform about the death of the deceased Santosh.
Santosh, daughter of Devki Devi Mali, the Police reached the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.10Smt.
She also stated that, when the Police came at around 900 A.M, her mother Smt.
