JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Carefully perused the record.

2. This leave to appeal u/s. 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.9.16 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No.14/13, acquitting the accused-respondents Balwan Singh, Pawan Kumar and Vipin Kumar of the charges for offences under Sections 302 or 302/149, 120 B IPC and Raman @ Ramal @ Ramla of the charge for offence under Section 302/120B IPC.

3. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case emerging from the record is that complainant Vijendra Singh submitted a written report (Ex. P/20) on 6.2.09 at 8.00 PM before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, District Churu to the effect that on 6.2.09 at about 4.00 PM, he along with his cousin brother Virendra Singh reached Sheetla market, where Virendra Singh went to the barber shop while saying Gyansingh who was driving the vehicle to come after taking turn. The complainant was sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle. Gyan Singh took turn of vehicle from the road near Maszid, they saw that when Virendra reached the Sheetla Chowk from the Barber shop, two boys came on Red coloured Hero Honda motorcycle of HR number and fired a shot on the back of Virendra, thereby Virendra fell down, then second boy fired the shot underneath his ear and third bullet was fired on the head of Virendra. Both the complainant and Gyan Singh dismounted from the vehicle, then both the boys fled away towards Nehru Bal Mandir School leaving the motorcycle on the spot, in the street, one boy boarded in the stationary without numbered Bolero vehicle wherein 5-6 persons were already boarded, second boy ran away in the said street afoot. The shoes of one boy remained on the spot. The empty cartridges were lying on the spot. Thereafter, Virendra was taken to the hospital by them. Certain allegations regarding political rivalry between deceased Virendra and Ram Singh, Member of Parliament, were also levelled.

Upon the said report, a first information report being No.43/09 (Ex.P/21) was registered for the offences under Section 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120 B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and investigation commenced. After investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused Shyam Sunder, Satpal, Balwan, Pawan and Vipin for the offences under Section 302/34 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and against accused Ram @ Ramla, a supplementary ( Titamba) charge sheet for offences under Section 302, 143 and 120B was filed.

4. The trial court framed the charges against the accused persons Shyam Sunder @ Sundariya @ Sumendra and Satpal @ Pali for the offence under Section 302 or 302/149 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Against accused respondents namely Balwan, Vipin and Pawan Kumar, charges for the offence under Section 302 or 302/149 and 120B IPC were framed. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The charges against accused respondent Raman @ Ramla were framed on the supplementary (Titamba) charge sheet separately after recording of the statements of 12 witnesses for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges and claimed trial. Since the accused respondent Raman @ Ramla did not want to cross-examine the witnesses already examined, therefore, appropriate order in this regard was passed by the trial court on 1.6.15.

5. The prosecution produced and examined 43 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-43) and tendered the documentary evidence. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they alleged that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is false. Regarding identification parade, accused Shyam Sunder and Satpal alleged that they were already shown to the witnesses Gyansingh, Nefusingh, Naresh and Vijendra by the Additional Superintendent of Police in the Police Station Rajaldesar, Rajgarh an