This appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.03.2012 passed in S.C.No.1119/2010 c/w S.C.No.1010/2008 on the file of the XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru (CCH No.34).

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint Ex.P1 are that, there was enmity between the deceased persons, namely Dinesh and Prasanna with the accused persons. Deceased had settled the civil litigation between one Gopala Gowda and Puttappa and earned commission of Rs.2 lakhs. In this regard, the accused persons were jealous against the deceased. Further in respect of an incident with regard to teasing of a girl of Boganahalli village by the boys of Kadubeesanahalli village, the deceased had warned and advised the accused persons and there was a quarrel between them. As such, there was ill will between the deceased and the accused persons. The accused persons were grinding axe against the deceased. Further, on 2.4.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. in the 2nd cross of Kadubeesanahalli village in front of the shop of accused No.5 when deceased persons namely, Dinesh and Prasanna had gone in the santro car of Dinesh bearing registration No.KA05MW738 to compromise the issue as requested by the accused persons, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly with an object of committing the murder of Dinesh and Prasanna and attacked them with knives, long etc., and also by dropping stones on them, committed murder of both of them. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1 Manjunath as per Ex.P1, case was registered in Crime No.156/2008 of HAL police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

After completing the investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 146, 148, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, framed the charges against the accused in both sessions cases S.C.No.1119/2010 c/w S.C.No.1010/2008. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the matter was set down for trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P52 and also got marked the material objects M.Os.1 to 42. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded. On the side of the defence no witnesses were examined. But the documents Exs.D1 to D3 were marked while cross examining the prosecution witnesses.

After hearing the arguments on both sides in respect of both the Sessions matters and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted all the accused persons holding that prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Being aggrieved by the same and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State, so also, the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

4. Learned Addl. SPP during the course of his arguments submits that P.Ws.2 and 3 who have been examined before the trial Court are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have clearly deposed in their evidence that they have personally witnessed the incident. He also submits that in the evidence of P.W.2, one of the eyewitnesses, so also, in the evidence of P.W.16, the Investigation Officer, it has come on record that there was electricity street light at the place of the incident. Hence, there was an opportunity for the eyewitnesses to see the incident and to identity the persons involved in committing the alleged offences. Learned Addl. SPP drew our attention to t