JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant–State under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the validity of judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 54/2017, arising out of FIR No. 40/2017 registered at Police Station Phalasiya, District Udaipur, whereby the accused-respondents, namely, – Jagdish and Govindram have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per prosecution case, on 08.04.2017 at about 8:00 a.m., the complainant Smt. Priyanka @ Sita Baranda submitted a written information (Ex.P-1) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Phalasiya, stating therein that she and her brother Subhash had gone to their respective schools in the morning, she to Sitradari School and her brother to Sigri School to appear in an examination. She stated that upon hearing shouting and noise from the direction of her house, she rushed back and saw that the accused-respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govindram were assaulting her Bhuwa Kamla, her grandfather Lakhma, and her grandmother Dhanki with lathis, and thereafter fled from the spot. She further stated that her brother Subhash also reached there and, upon seeing the injured persons lying at the spot, went to inform their Bhuwa Elasi, resident of Sada. When Elasi arrived, it was found that Lakhma and Kamla had succumbed to their injuries, while Dhanki was lying in a seriously injured condition.

3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No. 40/2017 was registered at Police Station Phalasiya for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, District Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur for trial.

5. The learned Trial Court framed, read over, and explained the charges under Section 302/34 IPC to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-61.

7. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution allegations, claimed false implication, and asserted their innocence. The accused-respondents did not lead any evidence in defence.

8. Learned Trial Court, Upon hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and after appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused- respondents of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.11.2022.

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2022, the Appellant–State has preferred the present Appeal.

10. Hence the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant – state submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality and perversity in acquitting the accused–respondents of the charges levelled against them. The impugned judgment is contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant – state further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as well as the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and has ignored material circumstances and corroborative pieces of evidence, which clearly establish the complicity of the accused-respondents. The learned court below, thus, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents.

13.