The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of respondents due to inconsistent and unconvincing witness testimony, reaffirming the principle that prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

1. The State has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 20.07.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No.28/1997 (145/1997), whereby the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, " IPC ").

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that PW-9 Kanhaiyalal gave a Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14 to the effect that his elder brother Hukumchand was operating a 'Dhaba' (restaurant) on his land, situated in Junakheda near Tirahe Balaji Road and at about 11:00 P.M., he came to meet his brother, Hukumchand, at his Dhaba where his brother's servant Jankilal Meena, Chhotulal, and Rameshchand were also present. It is also stated in the Parcha Bayan that Kailash Chandra and Roshanlal were eating food and consuming liquor. It is further stated that Balchand Bheel’s truck was parked on Junakheda Road, and his driver was sleeping in the truck. While eating food, Kailash Meena started abusing, and upon hearing his voice, truck driver Banney Singh came there and took Kailash in his truck. After 15 to 20 minutes, Kailash took out a 'tommy' (tool) from the truck, and Roshanlal, Rameshwar, and Ramgopal also came with sticks in their hands and started abusing. It is also described in Parcha Bayan that his brother Hukumchand went out of the Dhabha and tried to pacify them then accused Rampal hit Hukumchand’s head with a stick and Kailash also assaulted with a 'tommy' and took the deceased to Baba Ji’s Dham where deceased fell and they continued to assault the deceased with sticks & tommy. It is also mentioned in the parcha bayan that upon intervention Ramgopal caused injury to Kanhiyalal's left wrist and right shoulder with the aid of a stick. The four men, believing his brother to be dead, ran towards Balram Patidar's field and thereafter the restaurant's servants picked up his brother- Hukamchand and gave him water to drink. A short while later, a police jeep arrived, carried the deceased Hukamchand to Asnawar Hospital & got the deceased admitted, however, the deceased died soon after his hospitalisation.

3. On the Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14, Case No.153/1996, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. After investigation, the Police charge-sheeted Kailash Chandra, Ramgopal, Roshanlal and Rameshwar under read with , 323/34 of .

4. The learned Trial Court, after framing charges against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 323 of IPC commenced the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded; however, the accused persons did not submit any defence evidence.

5. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties vide impugned judgment dated 20.07.1998, acquitted the respondents Kailash Chandra, Roshanlal, Rameshwar under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused Ram Gopal under /34 and Section 323 of .

6. The State has filed the present appeal against the respondents.

7. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4- Rameshwar expired and the proceedings qua the respondent No.4- Rameshwar stands abated.

8. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC . It is argued that although the material eye witnesses, PW-1 Chotulak, PW-2 Janaki Lal, and PW-3 Baney Singh, have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's story, however, t