Heard learned AGA on behalf of State and perused the material available on record.

1. By means of the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., State has sought leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 15.01.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2009 (State Vs. Mohan Pasi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2009, under Sections 394, 302, 411 IPC, Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2009 (State Vs. Shakeel and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2009, under Sections 394, 302, 411 IPC, Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2009 (State Vs. Shakeel Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2009, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Sessions Trial No. 425 of 2009 (State Vs. Amit Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2009, under Section 394/120-B IPC and Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2012 (State Vs. Dinesh Kori) arising out of Case Crime No. 420 of 2009, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

2. The facts in brief, in the present case, are to the effect that on 08.02.2009 one Rajendra Prasad Tiwari had given written report at police station Kurebhar, district Sultanpur that on 08.02.2009, he alongwith his father Sita Prasad Tiwari, aged about 72 years were going on his motorcycle C.D. Delux Registration No. Uttar Pradesh 44 L 1990 to house of his maternal uncle at Barausa via Sultanpur. When they were coming back at about 6:30 P.M., three unknown persons had stopped his motorcycle and thereafter they snatched the key of motorcycle and also assaulted him and his father by using knife. In this incident, he and his father had received injuries and subsequently his father Sita Prasad Tiwari, who was taken to Primary Health Center at Dhanpatganj for treatment, succumbed to injuries received in the incident.

3. In view of the above said factual background, on 08.02.2009 at about 20:15 hours, FIR was lodged at Case Crime No. 62 of 2009, under Sections 394, 302 IPC. Investigation of the case was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2009, Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2009, Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2009, Sessions Trial No. 425 of 2009 and Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2012 were instituted before the court below.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution has produced PW-1 Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (informant), PW-2 Kuldeep Tiwari, PW-3 Shyamlal, PW-4 Constable Hira Lal, PW-5 Dr. A.K. Senger, who prepared postmortem report, PW-6 S.I. S.N. Singh (I.O.), PW-7 Indramani Tiwari, PW-8 S.N. Singh (Circle Officer), PW-9 Harendra Pratap Singh (I.O.), PW-10 Constable Rajendra Prasad Rai and PW-11 Brijendra Nath Shukla.

5. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they had denied their guilt.

6. On the basis of the material available on record and evidence adduced before the trial court, by means of judgment and order dated 15.01.2014, respondents-accused were acquitted in the matter in question.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate while challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court submits that in the present case on the basis of pointing out of one of the co-accused Mohan Pasi, the motorcycle C.D. Delux Registration No. Uttar Pradesh 44 L 1990 has been recovered by the police. However, ignoring the said material evidence of the case, learned trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal. She further submits that said act on the part of the learned trial court is not in accordance with law.

8. In support of her argument, learned AGA has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 673 equivalent citation is (2017) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1. She has relied on paragraph no. 449 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-

"449. The above contention of the defence counsel urges one to look into