Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 1.9.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), in Sessions Case No.98/1994 whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of PW-5 Raji Ram (Exhibit P/9), the police registered FIR No.106/1994 at Police Station, Muklawa, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. against unknown persons. In the statement of Raji Ram (PW-5), it is stated that he is having four sons. Bala Ram is eldest son whereas Shankar Lal, Jagdish and Jaswant are younger sons. Bala Ram is residing separately whereas the other three sons are residing with him. He is running a flour mill near canal and yesterday upto evening, he along with his servant Nirmal Singh had operated the said flour mill. He further stated that at about 12 - 12:30 AM, his wife and son Jaswant came to the flour mill and his wife gave some medicine and cloths to sleep and she stayed there with him on the flour mill whereas his son Jaswant returned to his house. His mother Aasi sleeps in outer room and his other two sons Shankar Lal and Jagdish and their wives sleep in the house. In the night at about 1:45 AM, his son Jaswant came at the flour mill and informed him that when he and his grand-mother were sleeping in the room then 3-4 persons came there and put a gun or lathi on his chest and thereafter assaulted his grandmother and ran away with some articles after killing her. On receiving the said information, he reached his house along with his son Jaswant and found his mother lying there having an injury on her face. Her gold earring, neckless and silver kadlas of her legs were missing. When he reached the house, Sarpanch Hanuman and many other persons also gathered there.

3. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. On committal, the trial court framed charges against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. The prosecution got examined as many as 16 witnesses and also exhibited several documents and articles. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied that he has committed any offence and also submitted that he has falsely been implicated by brothers of his father. It is also stated that as he has refused to marry with daughter of Chunni Lal, he has falsely been implicated in this case.

4. The learned trial court, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellant and after pondering over the evidence produced by the parties has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. vide impugned judgment.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that though the prosecution has not produced any eye witness to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent, but has produced circumstantial evidence to prove the charge against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. It is argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the ornaments belonging to the deceased and blood stained cloths of accused-respondent were recovered at his instance but the learned trial court disbelieved the said recovery without giving any cogent reason. It is also submitted that the prosecution has proved the recovery of piece of brick from the accused-respondent by which the accused-respondent had assaulted his grand-mother. It is argued that all the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court sufficiently connected the accused-respondent with the commission of crime, however, the learn