Judgment :- S.P. TALUKDAR, J (1.) The instant appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th Februrary, 1990 passed by learned 3rd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Sessions Case No.67 of 1988. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused person namely Rampada Ghosh after finding him not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (2.) The prosecution case was that on 18th January, 1979 corresponding to 4th Magh, 1385 B.S. the accused murdered Smt. Saraswati Banerjee @ Ghosh @ Anjali Ghosh @ Mona and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. (3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge which was framed on 31st January, 1989 and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused person examined as many as 16 witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 is the de facto-complainant and brother of the victim, since deceased. P.W.7 is his mother. P.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 are all local witnesses. P.W.6 is Rickshaw owner who took the victim to the hospital. P.W. 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14 and P.W.15 are all police witnesses. P.W.16 is the Doctor who held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the victim. (4.) Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the statements made by the accused during his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. came to the finding that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. (5.) Ms. Gomes, leaned Counsel appearing for the State-appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court submitted that the very fact that victim was admitted in the hospital with a different name reveals the mala fide. She referred to the fact that the accused Rampada Ghosh absconded immediately after the incident. Inviting attention of the court to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it was submitted by Ms. Gomes that they are probable witnesses and their evidence is convincing enough so as to justify conviction. Ms. Gomes did not however hesitate to mention that investigation was made in a rather perfunctory manner but, according to her, that could not conceal the truth. Gomes that they are probable witnesses and their evidence is convincing enough so as to justify conviction. Ms. Gomes did not however hesitate to mention that investigation was made in a rather perfunctory manner but, according to her, that could not conceal the truth. (6.) In the written complaint, which in fact gave rise to the instant case, it was alleged that the complainant came to know that his sister Smt. Saraswati Devi had been admitted in the hospital. He rushed to the hospital. He was told by the Doctor that smell of Carbolic Acid was coming out from the mouth of his sister. The patient was reportedly undergoing stomach wash. On 18th January, 1979 at about 9-30 P.M. his sister expired. He claimed that he could learn from the neighbours that Rampada Ghosh, used to torture his sister, Saraswati both physically and mentally. The accused drove her out after beating her up. In the written complaint which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext.3), the de facto-complainant stated that he could learn that his sister was assaulted with a Shabal (i.e., iron rod) before her death by her husband. It was also alleged that she could be forced to consume acid. (7.) Of the 16 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the de facto-complainant. In his evidence in chief he stated about the incident as narrated in the written complaint. P.W.1 deposed that his sister was admitted in the hospital as one Anjali Ghosh. When dead body was laid on the verandah after being taken out of the emergency ward, P.W.1 could see signs of beating on her body. There were also marks on her face as well as body indicating that she was beaten with iron rod etc. P.W.1 deposed that he went to Kalna Police Station and submitted a written complaint. The same had been marked Ext.1 after being proved by him. On the following morning, he went back home. He visited the hospital again. He was examined by police officer at that time in the hospital. He identified his signature in the inquest report, which was prepared in his presence. He specifically deposed that neither the accused nor anybody of his family attended the hospital. P.W.1 submitted a fresh written complaint since his earlier complaint did not receive the care and attention it deserved which had been marked Ext.3. He identified his signature in the inquest report, which was prepared in his presence. He specifically deposed that neither the accused nor anybody of his family attended the hospital. P.W.1 submitted a fresh written complaint since his earlier complaint did not receive the care and attention it deserved which had been marked Ext.3. Police authority did not take any proper action, which compelled P.W.1 to submit a written complaint before the learned Court of S.D.J.M., Kalna. Thereafter, C.I.D took up the investigation. It thus appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that he lodged two written complaints i.e., one on 19.01.1979 and subsequently on 5.02.1979. The same had been marked Ext.1 and Ext.3 respectively. On perusal of the said two documents, one can very well come across inconsistencies. Question automatically arises as to how could the subsequent complaint dated 5.02.1979 be treated as F.I.R. It was claimed in such written complaint that the victim was beaten up and was also forced to consume poison. Learned Trial Court referring to the post-mortem report (Ext.6) observed that there was no mention of any marks of assault by iron rod etc. in it. (8.) P.W.2 in her evidence in chief stated that after hearing that the sister of Parimal (P.W.1) and Nirmal was being severely beaten up, she rushed to the house of the accused. Reaching the gate in front of the room of the accused, she could hear cries of Mona. P.W.2 claimed to have told about it to Ratan and Sambhu, since she could not find Parimal and Nirmal. Sometime after P.W.2 found Rampada was taking Mona to the hospital in the Rickshaw of one Manindra. P.W.2 followed them and reaching the hospital, she found the victim dead with marks of assault on her body. In her cross examination P.W.2 deposed that it is not a fact that he did not tell the police that reaching the gate in front of the room of Rampada, she heard cries of Mona saying Aamake Banchao, Ore Babare, Aamake Mere Fello. P.W.13 Investigating Officer categorically stated that such P.W.2, Smt. Joytsna Halder, did not make such statement before him. (9.) While corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on some material points, P.W.3 deposed that on being asked by him, Parimal (P.W.1) told him that there were marks and spots on the entire body. P.W.13 Investigating Officer categorically stated that such P.W.2, Smt. Joytsna Halder, did not make such statement before him. (9.) While corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on some material points, P.W.3 deposed that on being asked by him, Parimal (P.W.1) told him that there were marks and spots on the entire body. He further deposed that Parimal showed the body of Mona by lifting the cloth and he noticed several marks and spots on her body and burns in her face around the mouth. Evidence of P.W.1 does not indicate that he made such statement before P.W.3. P.W.4 sought to corroborate the evidence of P.W.3. and P.W.5 stated that he was told that Rampadas wife had been beaten to death. He went to hospital and found the dead body, which was covered with a sheet of cloth. There were marks of assaults on the face and body of the victim. P.W.6 is the owner of the Rickshaw in which the victim was taken to the hospital by the accused. P.W.6 stated that he could not find the accused after death of his wife. Prosecution sought to derive further support from the evidence of P.W.7 who was mother of the victim. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are police personnel and their evidence is of formal nature. Dead body of the victim was sent to the hospital morgue under custody of P.W.10 for postmortem examination. P.W.11 is another police officer who took up the investigation of the case and recorded statement of some of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, he submitted final report in the case. He could not apprehend the accused. He did not collect the post-mortem report. He did not receive the viscera nor the wearing apparel of the deceased. The entire evidence of P.W.11 could only reflect arrogance and ignorance of such police officer. P.W.12 did not lend any support to the prosecution case. P.W.13 is the other police officer who took up the charge of investigation of the case since the finally report submitted by P.W.11 was not accepted by the learned S.D.J.M. P.W.13 also did not find any prima facie case and as a consequence submitted final report. P.W.14 thereafter took up investigation of the case under the order of D.I.G., C.I.D, West Bengal. In his evidence in chief he claimed that he examined 8 witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.14 thereafter took up investigation of the case under the order of D.I.G., C.I.D, West Bengal. In his evidence in chief he claimed that he examined 8 witnesses and recorded their statements. The investigation was thereafter taken over by P.W.15. He collected post-mortem report and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet. (10) P.W.16 is the doctor who held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the victim. He categorically deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was due to carbolic acid poisoning which is homicidal and ante mortem in nature. He further deposed that as the viscera was preserved, he did not pass any opinion about the death till the examination of the viscera by the Chemical Examiner. Accused in his statements made during the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded innocence. The learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment referred to the inconsistency in the two written complaints filed by the P.W.1. It had been alleged in such complaint that the victim was beaten by the accused who was forced to swallow acid. The Inquest Report, Ext.2, reflects marks of assault on the dead body. There is no mention of any such mark of assault in the postmortem report, Ext.6. P.W.16 could find injuries such as corrosion of skin on the right cheek and of the throat. P.W.9 could find one abrasion. On dissection, he could find smell of carbolic acid from stomach and its content. According to P.W.16, the death was due to poisoning by consumption of carbolic acid, which was homicidal and ante mortem. No final opinion was sought for from P.W.16. He could not give any further opinion since the report of Chemical Examination was pending. The learned Trial Court taking into consideration of such serious lapses in the prosecution evidence observed that this virtually struck the prosecution story with a deathblow. Learned Trial Court further took into consideration the fact that P.W.13 who recorded the statements of P.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 deposed that the said witnesses did not make any statement before him alleging any guilt of the accused person. The said witnesses even did not reportedly make any statement to the effect that the victim was either beaten up by the accused or was compelled to consume carbolic acid. The said witnesses even did not reportedly make any statement to the effect that the victim was either beaten up by the accused or was compelled to consume carbolic acid. Learned Trial Court also considered the fact that there was practically no eyewitness though there were respectable persons residing in the locality. Such being the nature of the evidence on record, this court finds it extremely difficult to appreciate the grievances as ventilated on behalf of the appellant-State. (11.) Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, appearing as learned Counsel for the accused person referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, as reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111. This was in support of his contention that an Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. First, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed. It was further submitted that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturbed the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. In fact, this was further reiterated in the decision in the case between State of Punjab vs. Sukhchain Singh and Anr., as reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1542. (12.) Despite repeated efforts, none could be found representing the de factocomplainant. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee appearing as learned Counsel for the accused person that to the best of his knowledge, the de factocomplainant had expired. (13.) Be that as it may, having regard to the inherent hollowness and the latent weakness of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate the grievances ventilated on behalf of the State-appellant. (14.) In our opinion, the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in finding the accused person not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order dated 24th February, 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1989 (Sessions Case No.67 of 1988) thus, stands affirmed. (14.) In our opinion, the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in finding the accused person not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order dated 24th February, 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1989 (Sessions Case No.67 of 1988) thus, stands affirmed. The accused person, if on bail, be released from bail bond at once. Send a copy of this judgment to the Learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. (15.) Criminal Department is directed to supply certified copy of this judgment as expeditiously as possible.