Smt Rambai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 1347 of 2023 (State Vs. Smt. Sumitra), arising out of Case Crime No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC, Police Station-Biwar, District-Hamirpur, appellant Smt. Rambai, who is the first informant/mother of deceased, has approached this Court by means of present appeal under Section 413 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS).

¶13

Under the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2025, Court below has acquitted the accused/opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 of the charges framed against them.

¶14

It transpires from record that an incident occurred on 26.10.2022, on account of which, one Ravindra @ Mohit, who was a small boy of tender age, died on 27.10.2022. An information regarding aforesaid i.e. Death Report No. 17 was received on 27.10.2022 at 10:16 on the wireless set by PW-8 SI Hari Narayan.

¶15

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Upon receipt of aforesaid information, PW-8 S.I. Hari Narayan immediately reached Kotwali Hamirpur. He, thereafter, collected the aforementioned Death Report and then proceeded to the new mortuary, where the dead body of deceased was lying. After reaching the new mortuary, he took possession of the dead body of deceased.

¶18

The inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on same day i.e. 27.10.2010. Aforementioned police officer, thereafter, prepared the inquest report (panchanama) of the body of deceased dated 27.10.2022 (ExtKa-6). In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), no opinion could be given regarding nature of death of deceased i.e. whether it is homicidal or suicidal. However, all the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses) concurred that postmortem of the body of deceased be got conducted to ascertain the exact cause of death of deceased.

¶19

Accordingly, SI Hari Narayan (PW-8) prepared the detailed police scroll i.e. Photo Nash (Ext-Ka-7), Police Form No.-13 (Ext-Ka-8), Letter to the Reserve Inspector, Police Lines (Ext-Ka-9) and Letter to the CMO (Ext-Ka10).

¶20

Thereafter, postmortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 27.10.2022. PW-7 Dr. Bhanupratap conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and prepared the postmortem report (Ext-Ka-5) and also proved the same. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, no external anti mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased. However, rigor mortis had passed down all over the body. Froth was coming out from the left nostril. Accordingly, viscera was preserved for being sent to FSL Laboratory for chemical analysis to ascertain the exact cause of death.

¶21

After 38 days of the occurrence, a belated FIR came to be lodged by first informant Smt. Rambai (mother of deceased) on 05.12.2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 304, 328 and 34 IPC, Police Station-Binwar, District-Hamirpur. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely (1) Smt. Sumitra @ Sheela, (2) Smt. Archana and (3) Ved Prakash were nominated as named accused.

¶22

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR can be gathered from the FIR itself. Accordingly, the FIR dated 05.12.2022 is extracted herein below;-

¶23

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

" िनवेदन है िदनांक 26.10.2022 की शाम लगभग 6-7 बजे के मध्य मेरे लड़के रिवन्दा उफर् मोिहत की अचानक तिबयत खराब हो गयी। मैं अपने मायके में थी, तभी िदनांक 27.10.2022 को लड़के रोिहत, लड़की रोहनी का फोन आया िक मोिहत उफर् रिवन्दा को ग्राम उपरी थाना िबवांर िजला हमीरपुर, िनवासीगण सुिमत्रा पत्नी कल्लू तथा अचर्ना पत्नी भानुप्रकाश व वेदप्रकाश पुत्रगण नाथूराम द्वारा एक राय होकर जान से मारने की िनयत से िमठाई के साथ जहरीला पदाथर् िखलाया गया है िजससे उसकी तिबयत खराब हो गयी है। प्रािथया का बड़ा लड़का रोिहत सरकारी एम्बुलेंस में रिवन्दा को सरकारी अस्पताल हमीरपुर ले गया। इलाज के दौरान िजसको देखकर डाक्टरों ने जहरीला पदाथर् बता कर मृतक घोिषत कर िदया। अतः श्रीमान जी से िनवेदन है िक सुिमत्रा पत्नी कल्लू व अचर्ना पत्नी भानुप्रकाश व वेदप्रकाश पुत्र नाथूराम, िनवासीगण उपरी के िखलाफ िरपोटर् दजर् कर कानूनी कायर्वाही की जाये।"

¶26

After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number. He visited the place of occurrence and on the pointing of first informant prepared the site plan (Ext-Ka-3). Apart from above, he also examined the first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 14.06.2023, whereby and where under the named accused i.e. opposite parties, 2,3 and 4 were charge sheeted under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC.

¶27

Subsequently, the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. took cognizance upon aforementioned charge sheet/police report. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 1347 of 2023 (State Vs. Smt. Sumita), arising out of Case Crime No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC, Police Station-Biwar, DistrictHamirpur came to be registered.

¶28

Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He, framed separate and distinct charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 328 IPC against charge sheeted accused.

¶29

Charge sheeted accused i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 denied the charges so framed. They pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

¶30

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

Consequently, the trial procedure commenced.

¶33

Prosecution in discharge of its burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused, adduced the following witnesses;-

¶34

(i). PW-1, Smt. Rambai (first informant/mother of deceased)

¶35

(ii). PW-2, Shyambai (Shyama) mausi of deceased

¶36

(iii). PW-3, Rohini (sister of deceased)

¶37

(iv). PW-4, Rohit (brother of deceased)

¶38

(v). PW-5, Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh (IInd Investigating Officer)

¶39

(vi). PW-6, SI Om Prakash Verma (Ist Investigating Officer)

¶40

(vii). P.W.7 Dr. Bhanupratap (the autopsy surgeon)

¶41

(viii). P.W.8- S.I. Hari Narayan ( he got the inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased conducted and prepared the detailed police scroll for post mortem of the body of deceased

¶42

(ix). P.W.9 Head Constable Krishna Kant Shukla (he had prepared the check FIR)

¶43

Apart from relying upon the deposition of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, the prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence in proof of it's case. The same is tabulated herein under:-

¶44

(i). Ext-Ka-1 Written Report submitted by PW-1 Smt. Rambai, mother of deceased at Police Station-Binwar and proved by P.W.1.

¶45

(ii). Ext-Ka-2 Charge sheet dated 14.06.2023 prepared by PW-5- S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh and proved by P.W.5.

¶46

(iii). Ext-Ka-3 Site Plan regarding the place of occurrence prepared by P.W.6- S.I. Om Prakash verma and proved by P.W.6.

¶47

(iv). Ext-Ka-4, Arrest Memo prepared by P.W.6 S.I. Om Prakash and proved by P.W.6

¶48

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶49

5

¶50

(v). Ext-Ka-5, Post Mortem Report dated 27.10.2022 prepared by P.W.7- Dr. Bhanu Pratap the autopsy surgeon and proved by P.W.7

¶51

(vi). Ext-Ka-6, Inquest report (Panchnama) prepared by PW-8 S.I. Hari Narain Singh and proved by P.W.8.

¶52

(vii). Ext-Ka-7, Police Form No. 379 (Photo Nash) prepared by PW-8 S.I. Hari Narain and proved by P.W.8.

¶53

(viii). Ext-Ka-8, Police Form No. 13 prepared by P.W.8- S.I. Hari Narain and proved by P.W.8..

¶54

(ix). Ext-Ka-9, Letter to Reserve Inspector Police Lines, Hamirpur prepared by P.W.8. S.I. Hari Narain and proved by P.W.8.

¶55

(x). Ext-Ka-10 Letter to CMO Etah prepared by P.W.8. S.I. Hari Narain Singh and proved by P.W.8.

¶56

(xi). Ext-Ka11, FIR prepared by P.W.9 HC Krishna Kant Shukla and proved by P.W.9.

¶57

(xii). Ext-12, Exract of G.D. No. 65 proved by P.W.9. H.C. Krishna Kant Shukla and proved by P.W.9.

¶58

In the case in hand, the depositions of PW-1 Smt. Rambai (first informant)/mother of deceased), PW-2 Shyambai (Shyama), PW-3 Rohini and PW-4 Rohit, who are witnesses of fact alone are relevant. The other prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses, who have proved the papers forming part of the case diary and relied upon by the prosecution. As no doubt has been raised by the learned counsel for appellant regarding the documentary evidence prepared by the formal witnesses i.e. Exhibit-Ka-2- to Exhibit Ka-13, their depositions need not be considered.

¶59

PW-1 Smt. Rambai. This witness is the first informant/mother of deceased. She is not an eye witness of the occurrence. Apart from above, this witness was not present at her matrimonial home i.e. village, where the occurrence took place. Admittedly, this witness was informed by her daughter Rohini (P.W.3) and son Rohit (P.W.4) that Ravindra @ Mohit is unwell. The said information was given on the mobile phone of the bhabi of

¶60

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶61

6

¶62

Smt. Rambai. Thereafter, this witness came to Hamirpur and then she discovered that her son is lying dead at new mortuary. This witness has, however, in her deposition before Court below has stated that named accused gave sweets mixed with poison to her son, who after consuming the same became unwell and ultimately, died. Aforesaid recital occurring in her deposition is based upon hearsay and therefore, unworthy of reliance. As such the deposition of this witness is irrelevant qua the manner of occurrence. However, the deposition of this witness can have some value on the point of motive with the accused to commit the crime in question. In her examination-in-chief, this witness has clearly stated that whatever, differences exist are between herself and her husband. No enmity or grudge exists in between her children and accused. Her husband is having illicit relations with her bhabi and on account of differences with her, the accused have caused the death of her son.

¶63

PW-2 Shyambai- This witness is the mausi (mother's sister) of deceased. This witness is also not an eye witness of the occurrence. Apart from above she was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Therefore, her deposition qua the manner of occurrence is based upon hearsay. This witness has, however, disclosed as to how the information regarding ill health of Ravindara @ Mohit was received and thereafter she along with others came to Hamirpur. It was then discovered that the dead body of the deceased Ravindra @ Mohit was lying at the Mortuary. This witness has, however, further stated that she came to know about the cause of death of deceased from Rohini and Rohit (sister and brother of deceased). As per the said disclosure, the accused persons gave sweets mixed with poison to Ravindra @ Mohit, who after consuming the same started feeling giddy, which fact was further disclosed to the father of the deceased by Rohini and Rohit and ultimately, his health went bad. It is thus apparent that noting substantial and reliable has emerged in the deposition of this witness which can be held to be worthy of consideration.

¶64

PW-3 Rohini and P.W.4 Rohit are sister and brother of deceased Ravindra @ Mohit. Both these witnesses were present at home at the time of occurrence. Both the witnesses have disclosed that their brother Ravindra @ Mohit was playing with a baby peafowl tamed by them. Suddenly the baby peafowl flew into the house of uncle Ved Prakash where aunt Archana and

¶65

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶66

7

¶67

Sumitra and uncle were sitting. Ravindra @ Mohit went to the house of accused. They gave sweets to Ravindra @ Mohit. Their brother returned home eating sweets and upon question being raised as to what is he eating, he replied that his uncle Ved Prakash, his aunt Archana and Sumitra have given him sweets which he is eating. After some time Ravindra @ Mohit complained that he is feeling giddy. On this P.W.3 is said to have stated that he may rest for a while and he shall be alright. Thereafter, she P.W.3 awoke Ravindra @ Mohit to have his dinner but he could not speak. This fact was disclosed by her to her father. Similar statement is occurring in the deposition of P.W.4. While P.W.3 has stated that in the morning Ravindra @ Mohit was taken to Government Hospital. P.W.4 has stated that at around 6 to 7 a.m. Ravindra @ Mohit was taken to Maudaha Government Hospital, where he was admitted. After 10 minutes, the Doctor referred him. Accordingly, he was taken to Hamirpur where he was declared dead.

¶68

Aforementioned witnesses were cross examined on behalf of accused. On suggestion put to them, as to where they were present when Ravindra @ Mohit came to the house eating sweets, P.W.3 stated that she was studying. P.W.4 has stated that he was sitting below the neem-tree besides his shop. Rohini his sister was sitting besides her. He has then stated that while Rohini was sweeping below the neem tree, he was sitting in his shop.

¶69

Court below thus concluded that since both the witnesses have given inconsistent account of time and place of their meeting with Ravindra @ Mohit, therefore, their depositions are not worthy of reliance.

¶70

After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse circumstances were disclosed to the accused. They claimed to be innocent and alleged that they have been falsely implicated. Thereafter, the accused in proof of their innocence, adduced two defence witnesses i.e. DW-1 Chhuttu (father of the deceased) and DW-2 Awadhesh Kumar Sharma.

¶71

DW-1- Chhuttu is the father of deceased. This witness in his deposition before Court below has clearly and categorically stated about his cordial relationship with the accused. He has also deposed that the relationship between himself and the accused are very intimate and there was no motive with the accused to cause the death of his son. The accused persons love his children. This witness, who was present at home, has also deposed that his

¶72

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶73

8

¶74

son Ravindra @ Mohit did not go anywhere outside the house. His wife Rambai has lodged a false F.I.R. Shyambai sister of his wife instigates his wife Rambai on account of which there is quarrel in between him and his wife. On a suggestion put to him as to how Organo Chloro Insecticide reached the stomach of deceased, this witness has clearly stated that the said insecticide was purchased for being sprayed on the corn crop. His son Ravindra @ Mohit was under despondency, on account of the fact that his mother is not residing at home and as such he might have consumed the said insecticide or the said insecticide may have been given by Shyambai. It is thus apparent that this witness, who is the father of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution story.

¶75

DW-2 Awdhesh Kumar Sharma in his deposition before court below has clearly stated that about Chhuttu father of deceased is living separately along with his children. He has further stated that relationship in between Chhuttu and his wife were strained. As long as Rambai wife of Chhuttu resided at village Upri. Shyambai sister of Rambai used to frequently visit village Upri. As long as she lived at Upri, Chhuttu and his wife quarreled with each other. Shyambai was responsible for the dispute between Chhuttu and his wife. This witness has however, pleaded ignorance as to how Ravindra @ Mohit died. As such, nothing important has emerged in the deposition of their witness.

¶76

During pendency of trial, the viscera report of deceased was received. Accordingly, same was filed before Court below. As per the viscera report, a foreign chemical compound namely Organo Chloro Insecticide was found in the body parts of deceased sent for chemical examination.

¶77

Upon appraisal and appreciation of evidence on record as well as evaluation of the prosecution case in the light of evidence on record and the arguments raised on behalf of defence, court below came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused, beyond doubt much less a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by means of judgment dated 25.08.2025, Court below acquitted accused/opposite partties 2, 3 and 4 of the charges famed against them under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC.

¶78

Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by Court below will go to show that Court below has recorded the following reasons/findings for

¶79

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶80

9

¶81

disbelieving the prosecution case;-

¶82

(A). The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 26.10.2022, but the FIR in respect of same was lodged belatedly on 05.12.2022 i.e. after 38 days of the occurrence even when the first informant Smt. Rambai mother of deceased knew the cause of death of deceased. As such, the FIR is belated.

¶83

(B). Though no explanation has been offered in the FIR explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, however, an attempt was made by the first informant PW-1 Smt. Rambai and P.W.2 Shyamabai to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. However, the explanation so offered was found to be false as is evident from the discussion occurring in the penultimate part of paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment.

¶84

(C). Since the delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution.

¶85

(D). As per the evidence on record i.e. the deposition of P.W.1 herself, the relationships between the accused, who are uncle and aunts of the deceased and the family of the deceased except the first informant were warm and healthy. As such, no motive can be attached to the accused to commit the crime in question nor the motive to commit the crime in question is discernible from the record. A clear finding to the aforesaid effect has been returned by Court below in the last part of paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment.

¶86

(E). The first informant (PW-1, Smt. Rambai) in her deposition before Court below has herself stated that whatever differences exist are between herself and her husband. However, no differences exist between her children and the accused. The said finding is clearly discernible from the recital occurring in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment.

¶87

(F). Though P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are sister and brother of deceased, have supported the prosecution story by alleging that they had seen the deceased coming home eating sweets. Upon being questioned with regard to time and place they met the deceased, both the witnesses have narrated different circumstances, making their depositions inconsistent and

¶88

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶89

10

¶90

contradictory to each other and therefore, they have been held to be unworthy of acceptance, by court below.

¶91

(G). DW-1 Chhuttu, who is the father of deceased , has not supported the prosecution story. According to this witness, his relationship with the accused is friendly. Neither any poison was administered by the accused to deceased nor there is any reason for the accused to administer poison to deceased. There were differences between him (father of deceased) and his wife (mother of deceased) alone.

¶92

(H). As per the evidence on record, no motive has emerged against the accused to commit the crime in question. There is no evidence on record so as to infer motive against accused from the circumstances prior to the commission of crime or by their conduct after the commission of crime.

¶93

(I). The prosecution case is that sweets offered by accused to deceased were mixed with poison and the deceased died because of consuming the same. The F.S.L. report clearly points out that a foreign chemical compound namely, Organo Chloro Insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased, sent for chemical examination. As such the chain of circumstances, is complete and points at the guilt of the accused. However, the same is not established from the evidence on record, as there is no evidence to show as to which of the accused offered sweets to the deceased, and further that sweets eaten by the deceased were offered by the accused and further that sweets eaten by the deceased was offered by the accused.

¶94

Thus feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 25.8.2025, passed by Court below, whereby court below has acquitted the accused-opposite parties-2,3 and 4 of the charges alleged against them, appellant Smt. Rambahi, who is the first informant, has now approached this Court by means of present appeal.

¶95

Mr. R.B. Singh, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement passed by Court below submits that the impugned judgement is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. With reference to paragraph 24 of the impugned judgement, he submits that court below has formulated the prosecution case in aforementioned paragraph which is as under:

¶96

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶97

11

¶98

"24. अिभयोजन की तरफ से िवद्वान िजला शासकीय अिधवक्ता (फौज०) का मुख्य एवं प्रभावी तकर् यह है िक अिभयुक्तगण सुिमत्रा उफर् शीला, अचर्ना व वेद प्रकाश के द्वारा वािदनी मुकदमा श्रीमती रामबाई के लड़के मोिहत को जहरीली िमठाई िखलाई गयी िजसके कारण वािदनी के लड़के मोिहत की मृत्यु हो गयी। जब मोिहत उक्त िमठाई खाकर घर आया था तब उसने अपने भाई रोिहत व बहन रोिहणी से यह बात बताई थी तथा PW3 के रूप में रोिहणी तथा PW4 के रूप में रोिहत ने इस तथ्य का समथर्न िकया है तथा पोस्टमाटर्म िरपोटर् में मृत्यु का कारण पता न चलने पर मृतक का िवसरा संरिक्षत करके उसे िविध िवज्ञान प्रयोगशाला भेजा गया था। िविध िवज्ञान प्रयोगशाला में परीक्षण के उपरान्त जो िरपोटर् प्रेिषत की गयी है उसमें आगेर्नोक्लोरो इन्सेक्टीसाइड िवष पाया गया है। इस प्रकार अिभयोजन का तकर् है िक अिभयुक्तगण सुिमत्रा उफर् शीला, अचर्ना व वेदप्रकाश के द्वारा जो िमठाई िखलाई गयी थी, उसमें जहर होने की पुिष्ट िविध िवज्ञान प्रयोगशाला की िरपोटर् से होती है। अिभयुक्तगण के द्वारा कािरत अपराध की श्रृंखला स्थािपत हो रही है। अतः अिभयुक्तगण सुिमत्रा उफर् शीला, अचर्ना व वेदप्रकाश प्रस्तुत मामले में दोषिसद्ध िकये जाने योग्य हैं।"

¶99

It is then contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the factum of sweets mixed with some poisonous substance having been offered by the accused to Mohit @ Ravindra (deceased) and subsequently, his death on account of having consumed the same, is clearly established as per the depositions of P.W.3 Rohini (daughter of P.W.1 Smt. Rambai) and P.W.4 Rohit (son of P.W.1 Smt. Rambai). As per the medical evidence i.e. the FSL Report, a foreign chemical compound i.e. Organo Chloro Insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical analysis. The chain of circumstances is thus complete which points at the guilt of the accused. He, therefore, strenuously urged that in view of above court below has erred in acquitting the accused. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶100

Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist and Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 have vehemently opposed the present appeal. They submit that the impugned judgement passed by Court below does no suffer from any illegality of law or fact so as to warrant interference by this Court. Court below has examined the prosecution case in the light of evidence on record threadbare, without leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. In view of the findings/reasons recorded by Court below on each of the points of determination which arose for determination, court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the very story which it set out to prove. The

¶101

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶102

12

¶103

deposition of PW-1 Smt. Rambai (mother of deceased and first informant) is not relevant qua the manner of occurrence as she was not present at the time and place of occurrence. The said fact has emerged in her deposition before Court below itself. Her deposition is relevant only on the point of motive. However, she has herself stated in her examination-in-chief that there was no enmity between her children and the accused. Whatever enmity exists is in between herself and her husband. PW-2 Smt. Shyambai is the mausi (mother's sister) of deceased. She was also not present at the time and place of occurrence. The same is evident from her deposition before Court below. Therefore, her deposition is based upon hearsay. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are brother and and sister of deceased in their statement-in-chief have supported the prosecution case to the extent that the sweet which was being eaten by the deceased was offered to him by the accused as the said fact is alleged to have been disclosed by the deceased himself to aforementioned witnesses. However, irrespective of above, Court below has disbelieved P.W.3 Rohini and P.W.4. Rohit, sister and brother of deceased on the ground that their depositions are not worthy of credit and acceptance as both the witnesses in their cross-examination regarding the time and place they saw Ravindra @ Mohit eating sweets have narrated different circumstances leading to an inconsistent account. It is by now well settled that the deposition of a child witness has to be examined with extra care, caution and circumspection. As such, court below has meticulously and analytically examined the depositions of P.W.3 and P.W.4 to find out whether it inspires confidence and credibility. It is, thereafter, that court below has recorded aforementioned conclusion. Court below has further observed that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish as to which of the accused offered sweets mixed with some poisonous substance to Ravindra @ Mohit. No such circumstance has emerged on the record either so as to infer motive against the accused. DW-1, who is the father of deceased, has not attached any motive to the accused for committing the crime in question. In fact, a very paradoxical position has emerged in the present case as the mother of the deceased has alleged criminality against accused whereas, the father of the deceased has deposed in favour of the accused. No illegality or perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement passed by Court below as neither court below has incorrectly applied any provision of law nor ignored any material piece of evidence. There is no misreading of

¶104

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶105

13

¶106

evidence either. The submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for appellant in support of present appeal are fanciful and appear to be attractive at the first flush. However, upon deeper scrutiny the same do not create a dent in the reasonings/findings returned by Court below for disbelieving the prosecution case nor do they point out any perversity in the impugned judgement. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that the present appeal does not involve any question of law or fact. Since Court below has duly considered and evaluated the evidence on record, therefore, there is no perversity in the impugned judgement. The conclusion drawn by Court below that the circumstances as have emerged on record, do not lead to an inference that accused have caused the death of deceased by administering him Organo Choloro Insecticide by mixing the same in the sweets alleged to have been offered by the accused to the deceased. Moreover, Organo Chloro Insecticide carries a very hard and pungent smell and therefore, it is impossible to believe that in spite of such a pungent smell, the deceased, who was a small boy of tender age, would have consumed it willingly. On the edifice of aforesaid submissions, the learned A.G.A. thus urged that present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶107

Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the following questions require consideration by this Court:-

¶108

(A) Whether the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings is a delayed F.I.R. for which no explanation has come forward.

¶109

(B) Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, whether the parameters required to be satisfied for inferring the guilt of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence are satisfied in the present case.

¶110

(C) Whether any motive can be attached to the accused for committing the crime in question

¶111

(D) Whether the finding returned by Court below that P.W.3 Rohini, sister of deceased and P.W.4 Rohit, brother of deceased are not worthy of credit and reliance is justified.

¶112

(A) DELAYED FIR ;-

¶113

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶114

14

¶115

Admittedly, the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 26.10.2022. However, the FIR in respect of same was lodged on 05.12.2022 i.e. after 38 days of the occurrence. As such, the FIR is highly belated. In spite of above, no explanation has come forward in the FIR explaining the delay in lodging the FIR. Admittedly, the first informant Smt. Rambai (mother of deceased) was not present at the time and place of occurrence. However, upon information given by Rohit and Rohni (brother and sister of deceased) on the mobile phone of the Bhabhi of first informant, she reached her marital home. The proceedings of inquest and postmortem were conducted thereafter. However, in spite of above, the FIR was not immediately lodged.

¶116

Irrespective of above, an attempt was made on behalf of prosecution to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. before Court below. Both P.W.1 Smt. Rambai (first informant and mother of deceased) and P.W.2. Shyambai, (mausi of deceased) in their depositions before Court below offered an explanation that the written report was submitted on the next date of occurrence at the concerned police station. The written report was got typed from a typist who sits across the police station. P.W.5 Inspector Sanjay Singh was cross examined on the aforesaid facts and he clearly denied the same. As such, Court below has rightly concluded that no explanation worthy of acceptance has come forward from the prosecution explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The said issue has been dealt with by Court below in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned judgement.

¶117

At the time of hearing we raised a pointed query regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, the learned counsel for appellant casually stated that since the trial itself has taken place on the basis of delayed F.I.R, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is now meaningless.

¶118

Apex Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 , (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 and (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938 has clearly observed that if the FIR has been

¶119

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶120

15

¶121

lodged with delay but no plausible explanation has come forward explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

¶122

In the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (Supra), the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

¶123

The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 13 SCC 791 quashed the conviction of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR.

¶124

In view of above, the conclusion drawn by Court below that the FIR has been lodged belatedly but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained even when first informant P.W.1 knew the cause of death of deceased cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

¶125

(B) CASE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ;-

¶126

Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eye witness of the occurrence in question. Complicity of an accused is a case based on circumstantial evidence can be judged only in accordance with the parameters laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116. Paragraphs 153 and 154 of the aforesaid report are relevant for the controversy in hand, wherein court has formulated the required parameters. Accordingly, the same are reproduced herein below;-

¶127

153.- A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

¶128

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶129

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji

¶130

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶131

16

¶132

Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

¶133

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

¶134

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶135

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

¶136

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶137

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶138

154.- These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

¶139

The following circumstances can be gathered from the record.

¶140

(a) The incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 26.10.2022 at village Upri, Police Station- Biwar, District Hamirpur.

¶141

(b) The victim Ravindra @ Mohit was taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur.

¶142

(c) After the victim Ravindra @ Mohit was hospitalized no steps were taken to get his statement recorded

¶143

(d) Ultimately, the victim Ravindra @ Mohit died at Civil Hospital, Hamirpur on 27.10.2022.

¶144

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶145

17

¶146

(e) P.W.1 Smt. Rambai, mother of the deceased was not present at the time and place of occurrence. P.W.3 Rohini, daughter of P.W.1 and sister of deceased and P.W.4 Rohit son of P.W.1/brother of deceased informed the Bhabhi of P.W.1 Smt. Rambai on her mobile phone that Ravindra @ Mohit (deceased) is unwell.

¶147

(f) P.W.1 Smt. Rambai reached Hamirpur on 27.10.2022 and found her son lying dead at new mortuary.

¶148

(g) Subsequent to above the inquest (panchnama) of the deceased Ravindra @ Mohit was conducted on 27.10.2022. However, no opinion could be formed by the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses) regarding the cause of death or nature of death of deceased i.e. whether it is homicidal or suicidal.

¶149

(h) Post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 27.10.2022. However, the autopsy surgeon did not find any ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased. As such, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Accordingly, the viscera of deceased was preserved for chemical analysis.

¶150

(i) After 38 days of occurrence, a belated F.I.R. dated 05.12.2022 was lodged by first informant Smt. Rambai, mother of deceased with the allegation that the accused persons have caused the death of her son Ravindra @ Mohit, even when she knew the cause of death of her son.

¶151

(j) The prosecution alleges that named accused with a common intention gave sweets mixed with some poisonous substance to Ravindra @ Mohit, which was consumed by him on account of which he became unwell. He was thereafter taken to the District Hospital, Hamirpur where he ultimately died on 27.10.2022 but no evidence has come on record as to which of the accused gave sweets to the deceased.

¶152

(k) Upon submission of charge-sheet, the trial commenced. During course of trial, the viscera report of deceased was received. As per the viscera report, a foreign chemical compound namely, Organo Chloro insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical examination.

¶153

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶154

18

¶155

(l) The Prosecution in order to prove its case adduced four witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.1 Smt. Rambai, P.W.2. Shyambai (Shyama) P.W.3 Rohini and P.W.4 Rohit.

¶156

(m) P.W.1 Smt. Rambai and P.W.2 Shyambai (Shyama) are not an eye witness of the occurrence nor they were present at the time and place of occurrence as such their evidence is unreliable qua the manner of occurrence.

¶157

(n) P.W.1 Smt. Rambai in her deposition before court below has clearly deposed that accused persons have caused the death of her son by giving him sweets mixed with poisonous substances. However, she has also stated that whatever difference exists are between herself and her husband and there was no grudge in between her children and their uncle and aunts i.e. the accused. In view of above, no motive can be attributed to the accused to commit the crime in question.

¶158

(o) P.W.2- Shyambai is the mausi of deceased. She is also not an eye witness of the occurrence as she was not present at the time and place of occurrence. As such, her deposition qua the manner of occurrence is based upon hearsay and therefore, irrelevant.

¶159

(p) P.W.3. Rohini and P.W.4 Rohit who are the sister and brother of deceased were present in their house which is very near to the place of occurrence. However, both these witnesses in their deposition have supported the prosecution case.

¶160

(q) Both P.W.3 and P.W.4 have been disbelieved by Court below on the ground that though P.W.3 and P.W.4 have supported the prosecution story by alleging that they had seen the deceased coming home eating sweets. Upon being questioned by them as to what he was eating, the deceased is said to have stated that he is eating sweets offered by the accused. However, upon being questioned with regard to time and place of their meeting the accused both the witnesses have narrated different circumstances leading to the inconsistent and contradictory account and therefore, they have been held to be unworthy of acceptance, by court below.

¶161

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶162

19

¶163

(r) D.W.1 Chhuttu is the father of deceased and this witness in his deposition before Court below has not alleged any criminality against accused regarding the crime in question. According to this witness the relationship in between him and his children and the accused were warm and healthy. As such there could not be any motive with the accused to commit the crime in question. To the contrary this witness has supported the accused.

¶164

(s) D.W.2 has not supported the prosecution story but his version regarding the cause of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has not been accepted by Court below.

¶165

(t) It is thus apparent that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no witness of the fact that the sweets offered to the deceased was mixed with some poisonous substance in front of him. As such, no offence under section 328 IPC can be said to be made out. Secondly, there is no evidence to show as to which of the accused had offered sweets mixed with some poisonous substance to the deceased who after consuming the same became unwell and ultimately, died. P.W.3 and P.W.4 in their depositions before Court below have stated that after seeing Ravindra @ Mohit they had asked him as to what he was eating. He is said to have replied by stating that he was eating sweets given by the accused. However, upon a suggestion put to them regarding the time and place they met the deceased, they have given inconsistent accounts which makes this part of the deposition contradictory and therefore unworthy of acceptance. As such, there is no evidence on record to even infer that the deceased was offered sweets mixed with poisonous substance by the accused. As such no such circumstances has emerged on record so as to infer the complicity of accused in the crime in question.

¶166

No motive to commit the crime in question can be gathered against the accused from the gamut of circumstances as have emerged on record.

¶167

In view of the circumstances of the case as noted above, it is apparent that no inference regarding the guilt of the accused can be gathered from the same. Therefore, in view of above, no illegality or perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement whereby and whereunder the accused have been acquitted of the charges framed

¶168

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶169

20

¶170

against them.

¶171

(C) Whether any Motive can be attached to the accused for committing the crime in question

¶172

As already noted above, present case is a case of circumstantial evidence inasmuch as there is no evidence to show as to which of the accused mixed Organo Chloro Insecticide in the sweets and secondly, who offered sweets mixed with poisonous substance to the deceased. P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are sister and brother of deceased have supported the prosecution story by alleging that they had seen the deceased coming home eating sweets. Upon being questioned as to what he was eating, the deceased is said to have replied that he is eating sweets given by accused. However, upon being questioned with regard to time and place, they met the deceased, both the witnesses have narrated different time and place they met the deceased, which are insistent with each other and therefore contradictory, thus unworthy of acceptance. This finding returned by court below is based upon due appreciation of the deposition of P.W.3 and P.W.4.

¶173

47 . A case where circumstantial evidence is the only available evidence then in such cases, the task of the Court is to find out the motive for the commission of the offence in order to link it with the commission of the crime by an accused. This has to be done by following the principles governing the trial of an accused in a case arising out of circumstantial evidence. For this reference may be had to the celebrated decision of Sharad Viridhi Chandra Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116 . The principles that were culled out therein have been followed time and again in a large number of cases including the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar 2018 (2) SCC 69 where the Court has ruled that an inference of guilt can be drawn in a case based on circumstantial evidence by observing as follows in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 which are extracted herein under:-

¶174

"9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances

¶175

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶176

21

¶177

must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

¶178

10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, it was held as under:-

¶179

"12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."

¶180

43. The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679.

¶181

In order to prove the case on the basis of the evidence available whether direct or circumstantial, it is the duty of the prosecution to discharge its initial burden by adducing material on the basis whereof an inference of the commission of an offence involving the accused can be drawn. This discharge of initial burden is mandatory as held in several cases and reiterated in the case of Joydeb Patra and others Vs. State of West Bengal 2014 (12) SCC 444 where in paragraph 10, the supreme Court has ruled as follows:-

¶182

10. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

¶183

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶184

22

¶185

reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375, this Court held:

¶186

"19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."

¶187

Similarly, in Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 12 SCC 306, this Court reiterated:

¶188

"14. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute."

¶189

Once the initial burden is discharged, then the onus shifts on the accused to explain the status of his innocence or involvement.

¶190

In view of above, the initial burden was upon the prosecution to establish that there was a strong motive with the accused to commit the crime in question and in furtherance of that motive the accused offered sweets mixed with poisonous substance to the deceased who after consuming the same fell ill and ultimately, died.

¶191

On the question of motive the depositions of P.W.1 Smt. Rambai, mother of the deceased and D.W.1 Chhuttu father of the deceased are relevant. Both the witnesses in their depositions before Court below have been consistent qua the fact that there was no enmity or grudge in between the accused and their children. The enmity is in between the husband and wife.

¶192

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶193

23

¶194

52 P.W.1 Smt. Rambai, in her deposition has further stated that since her husband Chhuttu was having illicit relations with her bhabhi, therefore, the accused persons have committed the crime in question. The said fact was not further explained or established by P.W.1. Admittedly, apart from the deceased there were other brother and sister of the deceased, therefore what objective could be achieved by causing the death of Mohit @ Ravindra (deceased) is shrouded in obscurity.

¶195

It is thus apparent that the prosecution itself has failed to discharge the initial burden of proving motive against the accused or the circumstances from which motive to commit the crime in question could be inferred against accused. In view of above, the conclusion drawn by Court below as per the evidence on record no motive can be gathered against the accused for committing the crime in question is a finding which is based upon due appreciation of fact and evidence and therefore, cannot be said to be perverse.

¶196

(D) Whether the findings returned by Court below that P.W.3 Rohini, sister of deceased and P.W.4 Rohit, brother of deceased are not worthy of credit and reliance is justified

¶197

In the case in hand the depositions of two prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.3 Rohini sister of deceased and P.W.4. Rohit brother of deceased are relevant. As per the depositions of aforementioned witnesses the prosecution alleges that the deceased was offered sweets mixed with some poisonous substance by the accused and after consuming the same he became unwell and died. As per the deposition of above named witnesses, both the witnesses are alleged to have seen the deceased returning from the house of accused. Upon being questioned by P.W.3 and P.W.4 as to what he is eating he is alleged to have disclosed that he is eating sweets which were offered to him by accused. However, upon evaluation of their depositions, Court below has observed that upon being questioned with regard to time and place, these witnesses met the deceased, both the witnessed have given different accounts which are inconsistent and therefore, contradictory to each other making their depositions unworthy of credit and reliance. This is clearly evident from the conclusion drawn by court below which is at the bottom of page 19 of the impugned

¶198

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶199

24

¶200

judgement.

¶201

Which of the accused offered sweet mixed with some poisonous substance to Mothit @ Ravindra and he became unwell after consuming the same and ultimately died has not been proved by the prosecution. The said fact was a relevant fact and was required to be proved by the prosecution to establish the charge framed against accused.

¶202

At this stage, reference be made to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶203

Evidence has been defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as follows:-

¶204

"Evidence"- "Evidence" means and includes-

¶205

(1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry;

¶206

such statements are called oral evidence;

¶207

(2) [All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court],

¶208

such documents are called documentary evidence."

¶209

The evidence relating to a fact can be understood from the definition of the word fact which is defined under the same as follows:-

¶210

"Fact"- "Fact" means and includes-

¶211

(1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;

¶212

(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. A fact is stated to be proved according to the Act by the following definition:-

¶213

"Proved"- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

¶214

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶215

25

¶216

Apart from this, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains a guidance as to the presumption of a fact by a Court while appreciating evidence as to when a fact may be presumed to exist and proved or when the Court shall presume the fact to have been proved. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted hereinunder:-

¶217

4. "May presume".--Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

¶218

"Shall presume".--Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved:

¶219

"Conclusive proof".--When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

¶220

While defining the relevancy of facts Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also brings within it its fold the conduct of a party in the following terms:-

¶221

"........The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

¶222

Explanation 1- The work "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

¶223

Explanation 2--When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct is relevant."

¶224

On the issue of the burden of proof under Chapter 7 of the Act, Section 106 prescribes the burden of proving a fact on a person especially within the knowledge of that person. Section 106 is extracted hereinunder:-

¶225

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶226

26

¶227

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

¶228

In view of the provisions of the Evidence Act, as noted above, the burden was upon the prosecution itself to prove that the sweets were mixed with poisonous substance and thereafter offered to Ravindra @ Mohit who after consuming the same died. There is no evidence to show as to who mixed the poisonous substance i.e. Organo Chloro Insecticide in the sweets offered to deceased and secondly, which of the accused offered aforesaid sweets to the accused. Both P.W.3 and P.W.4 in their depositions (statement-in-chief) have stated that the deceased was seen by them coming from the direction of the house of the accused eating sweets and upon being questioned by them as to what was he eating he said to have replied that he is eating sweets offered by the accused. A specific suggestion was put to P.W.3 and P.W.4 regarding the time and place they met the deceased after he returned from the house of the accused. Both the witnesses have narrated different accounts, which upon comparison lead to contradiction making their depositions inconsistent and contradictory and thus unworthy of acceptance. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any error in the conclusion drawn by Court below i.e. to disbelieve P.W.3 and P.W.4 nor could he establish before us that upon comparison of depositions of aforementioned witnesses, no inconsistency or contradiction has emerged so as to render them unworthy of acceptance.

¶229

Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, we find that Court below has noticed the entire evidence on record and dealt with the same meticulously. The prosecution case as has been crystallized in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment has been examined threadbare. Court below after evaluating the entire evidence on record has recorded clear, categorical and cogent findings to come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt much less a reasonable doubt. We have already noted the reasons/findings recorded by Court below in the preceding part of this judgment. We are mindful of the fact that a Court of appeal in criminal jurisdiction is not required to examine the perversity/illegality in the

¶230

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶231

27

¶232

findings/reasons recorded by Court below but being the last Court of fact, it has to consider the entire evidence to find out as to whether criminality alleged is proved from the record or not. However, there is an exception to the aforesaid general rule i.e. a judgment of acquittal can be reversed by appellate court on limited grounds. In this regard, reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragaudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561. wherein Court has laid down the scope of interference by a Court of appeal in a case arising out of acquittal. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid report are relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same are reproduced herein below;-

¶233

"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-

¶234

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶235

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

¶236

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

¶237

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court." "

¶238

When the impugned judgment is judged in the light of parameters laid down by Supreme Court as noted herein above, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the same as Court below has neither failed to consider any material piece of evidence nor has it misconstrued any vital evidence. The findings returned by Court below upon evaluation of the evidence on record are the outcome of logical conclusion and in consonance with the judgments of the Supreme Court. As such, the same cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Therefore, Court below has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the very story which it set out to prove.

¶239

For all the reasons noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court

¶240

NC413 No. 561 of 2025

¶241

28

¶242

below has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and thereby acquitting the accused/opposite parties-2,3 and 4 of the charges alleged against them.

¶243