ORDER : 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2013, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (for short “IPC”) and consequential sentence to undergo imprisonment for life as awarded by the Sessions Judge, Durg, vide judgment dated 19.07.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 22/2006, has been upheld. 2. The factual matrix in the instant appeal began with Merg No. 35/2005 having been registered on 27.10.2005 at Police Station Jamul, on the basis of a compliant-cum-information received from Anita Bai. In the said complaint, Parsuti Bai (the deceased) who was the appellant’s mother, was staying along with the complainant and her husband (Purushottam), i.e. the aunt and uncle of the appellant, allegedly because of a quarrel with the appellant. The complainant revealed that the appellant initially came to their house and tried to set the deceased and Purushottam on fire using kerosene. However, he could not succeed and instead, returned after the lapse of some period of time. He then attacked the deceased Parsuti Bai with a wooden plank, causing a blow on the head and resulting in her instant death. 3. The appellant was thereafter arrested and subjected to trial, in which the Sessions Court found him guilty of committing an offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was consequently sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The Sessions Court primarily held that (i) the deceased’s death was caused due to a blow on her head by a blunt object; (ii) the eyewitness (Anita Bai/PW-1) corroborated that the appellant hit the deceased and (iii) the deceased was hit so strongly that she fell down and blood started oozing out. 4. The appellant laid challenge to his conviction before the High Court through Criminal Appeal No. 840/2006, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2012, holding, inter alia, that (i) the wooden plank was recovered based on the appellant’s disclosure statement; (ii) the appellant’s blood-stained clothes were recovered and (iii) two defence witnesses, examined by the appellant, admitted in their cross-examination that they were not eyewitnesses and did not see how the deceased died and (iv) that the appellant hit the deceased out of anger causing her death with a single blow. 5. Still aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court through the Jail Authorities. 6. 5. Still aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court through the Jail Authorities. 6. When the matter came up for hearing on 29.08.2014, the appellant was directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-State at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record. 8. We find that the entire prosecution case hinges around the deposition of Anita Bai (PW-1) and her husband (Purushottam/PW-2), which have been heavily relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Both the Courts have, unfortunately, not gone into the defence plea taken by the appellant. For the reasons assigned in the later part of this order, it seems to us that the depositions of DW-1 (Smt. Sudha Devi Mishra) and DW-2 (Smt. Jyoti Satnami), read with a part of the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) have material bearing on the fate of this case. 9. The appellant’s defence plea was that his mother was in an illicit relationship with Purushottam, who was her devar (brother-in-law), i.e. the appellant’s chacha (uncle), and she was staying in the house of her brother-in-law along with Anita Bai, who is the wife of Purushottam. 10. There is overwhelming evidence comprising the depositions made by the prosecution as well as defence witnesses to established that the deceased lost her husband 2/3 years before the incident, and thereafter, she started frequently staying with Purushottam in his house. Even Anita Bai (the complainant) could not refute the deceased being in illicit relationship with her husband, Purushottam. In her cross-examination, Anita Bai evasively replied that she had no knowledge of such relationship. On the other hand, the appellant, in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, as well as the defence witnesses have categorically deposed about an illicit relationship that had subsisted between the deceased and Purushottam. 11. At this stage, we may refer to the depositions of DW-1 (Smt. Sudha Devi Mishra) and DW-2 (Smt. Jyoti Satnami), who are young women, of 26 and 30 years’ age, respectively, and live in the neighbourhood of the appellant as also Anita Bai and her husband, Purushottam. 11. At this stage, we may refer to the depositions of DW-1 (Smt. Sudha Devi Mishra) and DW-2 (Smt. Jyoti Satnami), who are young women, of 26 and 30 years’ age, respectively, and live in the neighbourhood of the appellant as also Anita Bai and her husband, Purushottam. They have, in no uncertain terms, deposed that the deceased was in illicit relationship with Purushottam and that both of them used to live together as husband and wife after the death of the husband of the deceased. 12. The allegation of such illicit relationship acquires significance in light of the further defence plea taken by the appellant that Anita Bai (the complainant), wife of Purushottam, was fed up with the illicit relationship between her husband and the deceased, and on that account, it is she who assaulted the deceased when both were alone in the house. 13. It is noteworthy that PW-2 (Purushottam) has candidly admitted that only Anita Bai was in the house along with the deceased when the appellant allegedly came and assaulted his mother. Further, DW-1 has deposed that on one occasion, she had found Anita Bai bleeding from her ear, and on her asking, Anita Bai told her that she was assaulted by Parsuti Bai (the deceased). From the record it seems that DW-1 has not been cross-examined any further on this aspect. 14. In this convoluted backdrop, there can be no gainsaid that Anita Bai had an axe to grind against the deceased, as the latter had destroyed the matrimonial life of the former. It appears that the deceased was in a dominant position in Purshottam’s house and had even assaulted Anita Bai. In such state of affairs, the accusation of Anita Bai having assaulted the deceased cannot be lightly brushed aside. 15. Be that as it may, there appears to be another loophole in the prosecution case. Anita Bai (PW-1) and her husband Purshottam (PW-2), in the FIR as well as their depositions, have categorically stated that the appellant gave a single fatal blunt injury on the head of the deceased with a wooden plank. However, the post-mortem report reveals the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Swelling over cheek and chin. (ii) Injury over chin of 1 cm x ½ cm. (iii) Injury below the right eye of 2 cm x 1 cm x 22 cm. However, the post-mortem report reveals the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Swelling over cheek and chin. (ii) Injury over chin of 1 cm x ½ cm. (iii) Injury below the right eye of 2 cm x 1 cm x 22 cm. (iv) Swelling over forehead 4 cm x 3 cm. (v) Laceration of right ear of 4 cm x 2½ cm. (vi) Lacerated wound of 12 cm x 7 cm over right mastoid region. (vii) Multiple fracture of occipital bone and brain matter came out from the injury. (viii) Lacerated wound over parietal region of 10 cm x 4 cm with depressed fracture of left parietal bone. (ix) Skull bone divided in two pieces. (x) Fracture of small finger of left hand. 16. It is true that according to Anita Bai (PW-1), when the appellant hit the deceased on her head, she fell down. However, injury Nos. (i)-(vi), in our considered opinion, cannot be suffered merely upon falling on the ground. It seems that more than one injury was inflicted on the deceased, though the fatal one was caused with a blunt weapon on her head. This, however, cracks the prosecution story to the extent of the nature of injury attributed to the appellant. 17. In a comparative analysis of the statement of Anita Bai (PW-1) vis-a-vis the depositions of DW-1 and DW-2, we find that the statements and version of events rendered by defence witnesses are categoric, natural, and more reliable. Their version inspires confidence and seems to be trustworthy. They, being neighbours of both sides, had no reason to defend the appellant or falsely entangle Anita Bai and her husband. Further, they have fairly conceded in their depositions that they were not present at the time when the occurrence took place. It shows that these witnesses have not made any out-of-the-way attempt to rescue the appellant. It seems to us that in a doubtful scenario like this, it will be safer to trust the depositions of DW-1 and DW-2, when compared with that of Anita Bai (PW-1). 18. It is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of an accused should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of preponderance of probabilities, which ordinarily finds its place in civil determinations, is not applicable in this appeal. 18. It is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of an accused should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of preponderance of probabilities, which ordinarily finds its place in civil determinations, is not applicable in this appeal. As laid out hereinabove, the evidence supporting the possibility of the defence story, the discrepancies in the injuries and the eyewitness testimony, and the higher overall reliability of the defence witnesses cast an unmissable shadow on the case of the prosecution and the conviction of the appellant. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, it seems to us that this is not a case where the guilt of the appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 19. For the reasons aforestated, the present appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2013 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC. 20. As the appellant has already been released by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2014, his bail bonds stand discharged.