Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.

1. This acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30-6-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, (for short, “the trial Court”) Sessions Division Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2009 wherein the trial Court acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 3 for charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing murder of one Rangilal Rathore on 5-7-2009 at about 7.00 a.m. near canal of village Songuraha, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (CG).

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Rangilal Rathore. As per version of prosecution, deceased did not agree to give his land for cultivation to respondents No. 1 to 3 on crop share basis, therefore, there was some dispute. On 5-7-2009 at about 6.30 a.m. deceased went to supervise his land on motor-cycle with his nephew namely Basant Kumar Rathore (PW/12), at the same time respondent No.3 Geeta Prasad Patel armed with axe (Tangi), respondent No.1 Lachchi Ram Patel and respondent No.2 Ghanshyam Patel armed with clubs reached to the field of deceased and assaulted him mercilessly and caused instantaneous death. Basant Kumar Rathore (PW/12), who is sole eye-witness of the incident, anyhow managed to escape from the field and informed about the incident to Mahavir Prasa Rathore (PW/11) who is son of the deceased. The matter was reported to Police Station Baradwar by Mahavir Prasad Rathore (PW/11) just after the incident naming all three respondents No.1 to 3 as culprits. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondents did not plead guilty, therefore, trial was conducted. After examination of prosecution witnesses, statements of respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court acquitted all the respondents No. 1 to 3 as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under :

(i) The trial Court wrongly disbelieved the statement of Basant Kumar Rathore (PW/12) who is eye-witness of the incident whose version is supported by promptly lodged first information report (Ex.P/27) and other corroborative piece of evidence.

(ii) Version of Mahavir Prasad Rathore (PW/11), Leeladhar Rathore (PW/2) and Kanhaiyalal (PW/1) is corroborative piece of evidence and all these witnesses are stable since the date of incident, but the trial Court recorded finding against the settled principles of law.

(iii) The finding of the trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence which is not liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. vs. Ram Sajivan and others AIR 2010 SC 1738.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses.

7. Dr. P. Singh (PW/8) conducted autopsy of deceased Rangilal Rathore on 5-7-2009 at about 4.00 pm and noticed the following injuries.

(i) Fracture of right shaft in multiple pieces.

(ii) Lacerated wound over right cheek including right side of ears and parietal region in the size of 4”x3”x2”

(iii) Brain matter came out.

(iv) Right side of mandible fracture with same size of teeth missing.

(v) Blood clot present on right mandible.

(vi) Missing teeth No.5 and abdomen distended and whole body looking pale.

(vii) Contusion present on anterior chest wall.

(viii) Fracture of right parietal bone and brain matter palapsi out;

(ix) Fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the right side;

(x) Fracture of 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on the left side.

He opined that cause of death is head injury and excessive