The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial RBT No. 11-S/7 of 2013, whereby the accused persons, namely Sudhir Urao and Suresh Urao (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC ”).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). On 04.11.2012, around 11:40 p.m., police of Police Post, Mashobra, was informed telephonically by a person from his mobile, having mobile number 98056-51032, that a dead body was lying near the rain-shelter near Jablanda Crusher. In sequel to the above information police at Police Station Dhalli was informed. Thereafter, the police rushed to the spot and statement of Shri Anil Rathour (complainant), under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The complainant stated that on 04.11.2012, around 01:00 p.m., one Inder Singh informed him at Baldeyan Polling Booth that at Panjog, near the road a labourer was lying dead and his left side of the face was completely damaged. Police registered a case under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. Police prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses and also effected relevant recoveries, i.e., stone, iron rod and blood stained soil. During the course of the investigation, police associated local persons of the vicinity and migrant labourers for the identification of the corpse, but the deceased could not be identified. The corpse was shifted to the mortuary of IGMC, Shimla. Postmortem examination on the dead body was conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to Municipal Corporation, Shimla, for cremation. On 11.11.2012 one Kanhiya Lal Mahanto identified the dead body from its photographs and ultimately accused persons Shiv Kumar and Sudhir Urao were arrested. On 16.11.2012 accused Suresh Urao made a disclosure statement and got recovered two blood stained stones from the bushes near the place of occurrence. On 27.11.2012 accused Sudhir was also arrested and on 30.11.2012 he made a disclosure statement and got recovered chappals (slippers), which were identified by Het Ram to be of the deceased, so the same were taken into possession by the police. The iron rod, the alleged weapon of offence, was also got recovered by the accused Sudhir Urao. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet in the learned Trial Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twenty two witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case, however, in defence they did not lead any evidence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 22.04.2015 acquitted the accused persons for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon mis-appreciation of evidence, which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice, as such the same is liable to set-aside. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence