1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJ. vs. Purshottam Lal @ Billo. SB Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2007 under Section 378 (i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated May 10, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted from the offence under section 306 IPC. Date of Order : May 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Ram Sharan Sharma, for the accused respondent. BY THE COURT : The State of Rajasthan filed Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated May 10, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted from the offence under section 306 IPC and this court vide order dated March 23, 2007 allowed the application and the leave to appeal was ordered to be treated as appeal. Accused respondent was summoned through bailable warrant. Hence this appeal. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report Ex.P.3 was submitted before the Police Station Sidhana Distt. Jhunjhunu by Rajendra in which it was mentioned that on September 12, 2000 his mother Savitri aged 45 years and his sister Rajbala aged 13 years were sleeping in his hosue and in the night suddenly his mother and sister went from his house. They have searched them but did not find Savitri and Rajbala and both of them committed suicide. It is stated that accused respondent Purushottam given a love letter to Rajbala. Savitri and Rajbala went to Jagdish father of accused but they have threatened her to beat them in public. On account of this love letter Rajbala and Savitri committed suicide. Upon this report the police registered a case under section 306 IPC. The police filed challan against the accused under section 306 IPC. The trial court framed charge against the accused respondent under section 306 IPC . The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The proslecution in support of it s case recorded statements of `13 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. The statement of accused respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after hearing arguments of both the 3 sides, the trial court acquitted the accused respondent for the offence charged against him vide judgment daterd May 10, 2005. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for offence charged against him. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the offence charged against him. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. 4 6. The prosecution witnesses PW.6 Bhadar, PW.7 Sajjan Singh. PW.9 Maturam and PW.12 Durgasingh all have been declared hostile. PW.1 Tarachand, who is husband of Savitri and father of Rajbala stated that on account of fear of accused respondent they drove in the well. PW.4 who is son of Tarachand PW.1 also stated similar statement before the court. PW.2, Rajpal, PW.3 Rekha and PW.8 Rajesh also repeated similar story. There is no direct evidence against the accused respondent that the accused respondent forced Savitri and Rajbala to committ suicide. PW.11 and PW.14 are the police officials,they investigated the matter. The main crux of the matter is Ex. P.3 the so called love letter. A bare perusal of section 306 IPC and section 107 IPC make it clear that only on account of Ex.P.3 love letter, it cannot be inferred that the deceased Savitri and Rajbala will commit suicide. The prosecution failed to prove case against the accused respondent for the offence under section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court rightly passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused respondnet . The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to 5 law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and the appeal stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/