JUDGMENT

1. State has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.4.1986, whereby, respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. Learned state counsel has submitted that so far as respondents no.1 & 2 are concerned, they have died during the pendency of the appeal.

3. We have heard learned state counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

4. Respondents had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 & 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the prosecution story, respondents had fired at the deceased Mahaveer and Shivram and had thereafter fled away from the spot.

5. Learned trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondents has taken in consideration the fact that prosecution case was rendered doubtful as the alleged eye-witnesses could not have witnessed the incident as the place of incident was not visible from the place where the eye-witnesses were stated to be present. It has been further noticed by the trial court that there was no motive left with the accused to have committed the murder of the deceased as a compromise had been arrived in the earlier criminal case pending between the parties.

6. Hon'bl