Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The complainant Rakesh Kumar has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 1230 of 2010 (State v. Shankar Lal and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2010, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Sasani Gate, District Aligarh, whereby Learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA on the point of admission and have gone through the impugned judgment.

The prosecution story in brief is that the informant/appellant Rakesh Kumar lodged a written report on 30.7.2010 at Police Station Sasani Gate, District Aligarh, mentioning therein that his father-in-law had died on 19.7.2010. After some days when he got information about this death, he and his wife Pushpa Devi, went to his place. There was a strong rumour among the people living there that his father-in-law had been murdered by his own son and grandson. When the informant talked about this rumour with his brother-in-law i.e. the accused Shanker Lal, he said nothing and kept silent. On 29.7.2010 at about 8.00' Clock Shanker Lal and his son Ravi (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) came to his house. At that time the informant, his wife and son Gaurav were present inside the house. Before all of them Shanker Lal and Ravi confessed their guilt by stating that since Bapu (the deceased) was not providing the household expenses from the income accruing from agriculture, house and buffaloes’ milk, they were feeling it difficult to maintain their family having seven members including three young girls of marriageable age, hence they made a plan to kill ‘Bapu’. At about 11.00 p.m. they threatened the deceased to kill him but when he did not pay any attention towards their threat they tried to overawe him by putting a noose made of rope in his neck. The deceased, out of anger, started pulling the noose himself and during this rift and scuffle his neck got strangulated and he felt unconscious. Due to fear both the accused persons hanged the deceased with roof, after that they locked the door from outside and left the house. On the next day at about 10.00 a.m. they returned to their home and informed the police at about 2.00 p.m. After confessing their guilt, they requested the informant to save them from police. On this the informant said that rqeyksxksa us vius firk dks ekjk gS] tSlk djk gS oSlk gh Hkjks] oks dqN ugha djsaxsa A The informant and his wife kept on thinking and consulting during whole night and in the morning the informant went to police station and lodged the first information report.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report the police registered a criminal case under Section 304 of I.P.C. against Shanker Lal and his son Ravi. The matter was investigated and on conclusion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. Both of them were tried in the Sessions Court where charge under Section 304 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was framed against them and the trial commenced. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced the informant Rakesh Kumar as PW1, and his wife Pushpa Devi (who is sister of the accused Shanker Lal) as PW2. The son of the informant was examined as PW3. Apart from only these three witnesses of fact, no other witness, either of fact or of formal character was produced by the prosecution. As both the accused persons had admitted the genuineness of all the documentary evidence led by the prosecution, except the written report (exhibit Ka 1) (proved by PW-1) no formal witness was produced by the prosecution.

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statements of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication due to some confusion and misunderstanding.

It is worth me