ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent along with two other co-accused, namely, Chander and Chhotey were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The trial court held all the three accused guilty of the said offences and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. On an appeal filed, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence as regards the other two accused, acquitted Rajvir (the respondent herein).

3. To put it briefly, the prosecution case is that on 29.3.1979 at about 8 p.m. the accused persons knocked the door of Dr. Gopal Krishna (the deceased) who was inside his house. At that time, Shambhu Dayal (PW-1) was lying in the gallery close to the house of the deceased. The respondent-Rajvir gave a call from outside that a patient had come who needed to be attended at once. Dr. Gopal Krishna (the deceased) opened the door, and then all the three accused pounced upon and dragged him outside and started assaulting him with knives. The deceased Dr. Gopal Krishna and his brother (PW-1) started shouting and, on that, Ram Autar (PW-2) and Satish Chandra (PW-3) came to the place of occurrence; all of them tried to intervene, but in vain. Dr. Gopal Krishna died on the spot and thereafter the accused ran away. The motive for committing the murder of deceased Dr. Gopal Krishna was said to be that the accused Chander had a grudge against the deceased as his land was sold by his father to the deceased and he wanted to get back that land forcibly, and that there was also civil litigation between the accused Chander and the deceased on that account. Accused Chhotey had also motive against the deceased on account of an adjoining property which he wanted to purchase, but the same had been purchased by the deceased. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the three accused. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and PW-6 Shri Chaman Lal, Pradhan of the Village. The trial court on appreciation of evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that all the three accused did commit the murder of the deceased. Consequently, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, as already stated above.

4. The High Court in the appeal having reappreciated the evidence, referring to the statements of the witnesses, the motive for the murder and other circumstances, concluded that the other two accused were guilty of the murder and maintained the sentence passed against them. However, as far as the respondent is concerned, the High Court felt doubt as to his participation in the commission of the murder of the deceased, on the ground that there was no motive, whatsoever, for the respondent to kill the deceased. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the High Court specifically stating that to be on the safer side and taking all precautions as against the possible false implication of the respondent, acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt.

5. The State was not satisfied with the impugned judgment, hence has brought this appeal to this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the State urged that the High Court committed a serious error in acquitting the respondent having recorded that though the evidence led by the prosecution fully established the participation of all the three accused; the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is trustworthy and acceptable; and that the trial court as well as the High Court found, as a matter of fact, that their evidence were acceptable and reliable, yet acquitted the respondent. He also pointed out that PWs. 1 to 3 deposed that the respondent also assaulted the deceased. The learned counsel added that in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, there is also evidence of PW-6 Chamanlal, Pradhan of the Village and nothing could be said to disbelieve his evidence. He finally submitted that mere absence of motive was no ground to re