JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant complainant Raj Kaur for assailing the Judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 20/2017 (19/14 Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur) whereby, the respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt.

2. Detailed arguments were heard on the question of admission of this appeal.

The case pertains to murder of Buta Singh son of present appellant. An unidentified dead body was seen trapped in the mesh of the R.B. Minor Canal on 30.06.2013. Shri Rajendra Kumar lodged a report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Ghamoodwali regarding this discovery on which, the police reached there and brought out the unknown male dead body with the assistance of the villagers. A blue coloured jeans was found on the dead body. The hands and legs were trussed by a rope. A driving license and a Voter ID card were present in the trouser pocket of the dead body and from these identifying documents, it was established that the dead man was Buta Singh son of Sucha Singh, date of birth 03.01.1989, resident of House No. 430, village Kariwala, Tehsil Raniya, District Sirsa. It was thereby concluded that some unknown assailants had murdered and thrown the dead body in the canal about 8-10 days ago.

On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 112/2013 (Ex.P/27) came to be registered at the Police Station Ghamoodwali for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC and investigation was commenced. After thorough investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the respondents Gurjeet Singh, Sucha Singh and Harpal Kaur in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padampur for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar where, charges were framed against the accused for these very offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to acquit the accused persons by the impugned Judgment dated 25.10.2018 which is assailed in this victim's appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record.

4. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. We briefly proceed to consider the evidence of material prosecution witnesses.

The witness Surjeet Singh (PW-6) claimed that a case of attempted murder of Buta Singh by gunfire was filed against Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. Buta Singh took 6 Bighas of land belonging to Sucha Singh and came to a compromise in the case. The witness also stated that Sucha Singh had previously parted with a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- and gave it to Buta Singh. These preceding events were portrayed to be the motive behind murder of Buta Singh.

5. Naseeb Singh (PW-7) stated that Buta Singh was the son of his aunt (Bua) Raj Kaur. His aunt was married to Sucha Singh, who was previously married to Harpal Kaur and because of Court order, he had to resume the matrimonial relationship with Harpal Kaur and thus, Rajkaur was turned out of the house. Buta Singh demanded his share in the property from Sucha Singh and being annoyed thereby, Sucha Singh