- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the complainant petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State as well as the learned counsel for accused respondent Parwati @ Para Devi and perused the record.
(2.) THE learned trial court by the impugned judgment dated 7.1.2005 has convicted accused Kesar S/o Shri Shri Baldevaram but acquitted respondent Smt. Parwati for offence u/s 302 and 201 IPC. This criminal revision petition has been filed by wife of deceased against the acquittal of respondent Parwati Devi. It is not in dispute that the sole evidence against the respondent Smt. Parwati is that the recovery was made in pursuance of the information given u/s 27 of the Evidence Act of some articles namely a blood stained "Gudari". The learned trial court has considered the aforesaid set of evidence which was against the respondent accused Smt. Parwati and has come to the conclusion that the witnesses of the alleged recovery PW-3 Girdhari has not supported the prosecution case so far as the recoveries are concerned and PW-2 Gopal could not state from where the recovery was made. As such no reliance could be placed on their testimony. The learned trial court further found that the alleged information u/s 27 of the evidence Act was by virtue of Ex. P-30 and Ex. P-31, the information given to the Investigating Officer PW-20. The recoveries are said to have been made in pursuance of Ex. P-31 the information given by the accused respondent Smt. Parwati on 15.5.2004 at 3.45 PM where the I.O. had already visited and searched the same place on the basis of the information Ex. P-30 earlier and no "Gudari" was found by him. The learned trial court has thus doubted the recoveries as the I.O. did not find any such article earlier smeared with blood when he visited the place and carried out the investigation for collecting the blood stains etc. There is a detailed discussion given by learned trial court from para 37 of the judgment and we find no infirmity in the approach of the learned trial court. We are of the view that it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial court was not plausible and in case two views are possible and casts a doubt of the prosecution story the benefit of doubt has to be given by the trial court to the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore we find no merit in this revision petition so as to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. We may also add that so far as the co-accused Kesar and husband of the respondent No.1 who was convicted by the trial court, he had preferred an appeal before this court which was dismissed as abated on account of the death of accused appellant Kesar on 21.1.2010 in custody while serving the sentence in Central Jail, Jaipur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ;