The High Court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused based on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures, and that the findings of the trial court were not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.

( 1 ) THIS is a State Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11-11-1978 passed by Sri O. P. Srivastava, the then Sessions Judge Faizabad acquitting the respondents Sarju Prasad and Ram Sahai for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 302/109 IPC respectively.

( 2 ) THE family members of the deceased Km. Guddi, aged about three years and the accused lived in village Ganga - Vishnupur, which is a hamlet of Bhawanipur. The hamlet comprises nine houses only. Out of these nine houses six belong to the family of the accused, one to the family of the deceased, one to Ram Achaivara and the remaining house to Ramvaran. There was enmity between family members of the accused and the deceased in connection with the allotment of some land and a well, to the accused in consolidation proceedings. In addition it is alleged that there was some altercation in regard to putting up of a Chappar.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on 24-8-77 at about 10 a. m. the accused Sarju Prasad strangulated Km. Guddi and the co-accused Ram Sahai, who is the father of Sarju Prasad, was standing nearby and was exhorting Sarju Prasad to kill the child, a few paces from the house of the deceased. This incident was seen by Smt. Vimla Devi while returning from the Jungle. On hearing her shouts the witnesses Thakur Prasad and Ram Abhilakh also came there and saw the occurrence. They challenged (chased) the accused who ran away. Thakur Prasad scribed the first information report (Ex. Ka. 2) and submitted it in the police station at 11-30 a. m. on the same day. A case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up by PW-6 Laxmi Kant Pandey. He conducted inquest on the body of Km. Guddi and sent the body for post mortem examination. He also prepared site-plan Ex Ka. 9. On post-mortem examination conducted on 25-8-77 at 11-30 a. m. Dr. M. A. R. Siddiqi found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :1 - Contusion 1 c. m. x 1 c. m. on left ear lobule with abrasion with dry crusted blood. 2 - Contused abrasion at attachment of right ear 1 c. m. x 1 c. m. 3 - Contusion 8 c. m. x 4 c. m. on right arm upper 1/3rd on shoulder front. 4 - Echymosis 12 c. m. x 8 c. m. on front of chest right side and left side up to nipple and front of neck.

( 4 ) ON internal examination the Doctor found walls, ribs and cartilages of thorax echymosed in upper half with right second rib fractured anteriorily. He also found hyoid bone fractured and frothy secretion present in bronchi. The tongue was cyanosed in between the teeth. Bloody fluid was coming out from the nostrils and mouth and feacal matter from anus. Rigor-mortis was found absent.

( 5 ) THE investigation was taken up by the Station Officer S. P. N. Tripathi (PW-7) on 25-8-77. He arrested the accused and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet Ex Ka. 10.

( 6 ) THE accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity on account of allotment of certain land and well.

( 7 ) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the three eye-witnesses, in support of the prosecution version. After the assessment of the evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, he acquitted them. Aggrieved by the judgment and order the State has come up in appeal before this Court.

( 8 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the accused respondents.

( 9 ) BEFORE we enter into the discussion of the merits of the case we consider it necessary to notice the legal principles to be followed for consideration of appeal against acquittal. We consider this to benecessary in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that different principle and standards have to be adopted in considering appeal against acquittal. In Solanki Chirnanbhai Ukabhai v. Stat