N.K. Gupta, J. - (1.)HEARD on admission.
(2.)BY the present application, the State has sought for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No. 130/2009 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 5.5.2009 in the night between 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM in the morning the deceased Rajabai Patel sustained burn injuries and thereafter she was declared dead. An intimation was given to the police and on investigation it was found that Rajabai Patel died due to throttling and thereafter she was burnt and the burn injuries of postmortem nature. When interrogation took place, it was found that respondent Mukhiya Patel, husband of the deceased went in the night for arrangement of some generator system in a marriage and when he came in the night, he saw the deceased in objectionable position with one Mukesh @ Kaladhari. After viewing the respondent Mukhiya Patel, Mukesh @ Kaladhari ran away and thereafter Mukhiya Patel throttled his wife and she was burnt thereafter. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed.

(3.)AFTER considering the prosecution evidence and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant -State, it appears from the P.M. report that the deceased was killed by throttling and thereafter some kerosene was poured upon her and her body was set on fire. All such activities were done in her room itself. Under such circumstances, suspicion arises against her husband Mukhiya Patel and his relative Raju Patel. However, the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish the presence of respondent Raju Patel at the time of incident. It is possible that offence committed with the deceased Rajabai Patel could not be done by a single person, but it was for the prosecution to prove that it was the respondent Raju Patel who helped the main culprit.