A.J. Shastri, J.

1. The State has preferred present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2005.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Mangalbhai Bhudarbhai Bariya filed a complaint regarding disclosure of murder of his son Balvantbhai. It is alleged in the complaint that his son Balvant was staying at Surat and to attend the Holi festival, he had come to his native - village Vaghjipur. It was further asserted in the complaint that the Holi fire had taken place at about 1-30 midnight on the day of Holi and the next day was celebrated as Dhuleti. The people were busy with Holi celebration and complainant and other people of the village were to take dinner at house of Sardarbhai Bhayajibhai Bariya. It was stated that his son Balvant did not wait for taking dinner and he had proceed to go to his house. Since he did not reach to his house, the family members thought that Balvant would have accompanied the people celebrating the festival. It has further been mentioned in the complaint that on 27th March, 2005 in the morning, when the wife of Dalpatbhai named Laxmiben was going to graze a herd of goats, she had seen that dead body of Balvant was lying on the road to Godhra-Nada and she reported this incident to father-in-law i.e. present complainant. Pursuant to which, the complainant went there along with other persons, it was found that deceased was injured and apprehended that he must have been beaten on the chest as well as on the face, which was found crushed. This complaint came to be filed before the concerned police station being I.CR. No. 38 of 2005. Pursuant to which, the police has started investigation. The scene of panchnama was executed. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and with the help of police, the Scientific Officer has also taken steps, examined the articles, which were recovered from the spot and in addition thereto, the investigating officer has also taken help of sniffer dog squad. The articles which were recovered from the place of offence were sent for examination and after completion of detailed investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Since the case was triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions, which was then registered as Sessions Case No. 126 of 2005. Since the accused persons have pleaded not guilty, the charge came to be framed vide Exh. 4, and accused have claimed to be tried, resultantly the statements came to be recorded at Exh. 5, 6 and 7. The prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and have also produced the documentary evidence to prove the case and after closure purshis, having been given the further statement of accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure and pursuant to which, since the accused persons have denied to have committed the offence, the case was put up for trial.

3. Following witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to deal with the evidences and following evidences were also produced during the course of trial, which reads as under:

PW	Particulars
1	Parsingbhai Gamabhai Bariya, panch witness, Inquest Panchnama
2	Badharbhai Mathurbhai Matiya, Panch witness, Recovery of cloths.
3	Sardarsing Bhayajibhai Bariya, Panch witness, Recovery of cloths
4	Shivkumar Babulal Goyal, Medical officer
5	Parvatsinh Dalabhai Bariya, Panch witness, Recovery of shirt
6	Dalpathsinh Shankarbhai Bariya, Panch witness, recovery of article from Rekhaben
7	Mangalbhai Bhudabhai Bariya, Father of the deceased
8	Jagdishkumar Balvantsing Bariya, son of the deceased
9	Deepsing Dalsukh Bariya, Local resident of Vaghjipur
10	Shardaben Vak