Deo Narayan Thanvi, J. - (1.) This appeal against acquittal under Section 378 (l)and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment dated 1.2.1985 of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur passed in Sessions Case No.41 of 1983.
(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that on 26.4.1983, Kalu Singh PW-5 lodged a written report Ex.D-2 at Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur, stating therein that he had gone for duty as Chowkidar at M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur in the night of 25.4.1983 leaving his wife, daughter and his son's wife Santosh and when he came back next day morning, he found his wife Bishni and daughter Chanda were sleeping outside the quarter and inside his son's wife Santosh was lying dead in a burnt condition. On this report, inquest under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was made and during inquiry, suspecting the case being of murder, postmortem of the dead body was got conducted by the Medical Board which was of the opinion that, it was a case of strangulation. Accordingly, F.I.R Ex.P-18 was lodged by Sub Inspector Banney Singh PW-11 and after registering a case, investigation commenced. During investigations, it was found that there were no elements of burning of any article on the spot but a kerosene container was found lying and nearby a match box was also there. During investigation, police came to the conclusion that on the fateful night, accused Bishan Devi mother- in-law, Chanda sister-in-law of deceased and Sattu son of mothers sister of Chanda, were present and Kalu Singh father-in-law of Santosh was on duty, who lodged the F.I.R On account of presence of other incriminating evidence, it was found that these three accused-respondents killed Santosh by strangulation and burning. After investigating, these three accused-respondents Were charge sheeted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against all the accused respondents accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty.
(3.) The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 21 documents Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In defence, one Rameshwar Vyas DW- 1 Office Assistant was produce. After hearing the arguments on charge, learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused-respondents by giving them benefit of doubt, against which this appeal has been preferred.;