Ranjana Prakash Desai JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Respondent Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta was charged for committing an offence under Sections 302, 295 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'Indian Penal Code') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 7th June, 2000. However, upon appeal, he came to be acquitted of all the offences by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan vide order dated 21st February, 2004 primarily on the ground that at the time of incident, he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 Indian Penal Code and was directed to be detained in safe custody in an appropriate hospital or a place of custody of non-criminal lunatics as would be provided to him by the State Government under the direct supervision of the Jail Authorities till the time he was cured of his mental illness and infirmity.
2. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the State of Rajasthan has presented this appeal by way of a special leave petition.
3. Before we proceed to dwell upon the merits of the case and the legal issues involved in the present appeal, a reference to the case of the prosecution would be necessary. According to the prosecution, on 10th March, 1999 at about 7.15 a.m., while Pujari Tulsi Das (now deceased) was in the Raghunathji's temple, the Respondent abruptly hurled a stone on his head resulting into his instantaneous death. The Respondent also damaged the idol and other properties of the temple. This all was unprovoked. The incident was witnessed by the villagers including PW-6 Santosh, PW-11 Narsingh Ram and PW-16, Smt. Tiku Devi.
4. PW-2, Ghan Shyam Das Daga reported the matter to the police immediately. Upon receipt of the information, the police registered a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with the investigation. Besides recording statements of number of witnesses, the Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan and the inquest memo. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem which was performed by PW-20, Dr. C.P. Bhati, who prepared the post-mortem report Ext. P-37.
5. After investigation, the police filed the challan upon which, the Respondent was committed to the appropriate Court of Sessions for trial. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 295 and 449 Indian Penal Code, as already noticed. The Respondent denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses to prove its case. The material piece of evidence appearing in the case of the