JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been instituted at the behest of State of U.P. seeking to challenge the judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, District Budaun in S.T. No. 31 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandraveer Singh S/o Pachhu Jatav), arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2010 purported to be under Sections 302/34, 201, 506 IPC, Police Station Wazeerganj, District Budaun.

2. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details as portrayed by the prosecution is to the effect that two days prior to lodging of the FIR 17.2.2010, father of the informant had gone to the agricultural field for watering the same and after returning to the house, he received a phone call from the accused, who happens to be husband of the informant and son in law of the deceased, to come to a particular place. When the said fact was apprised to the informant as well as the family member, then resistance was sought to be made by the informant and the family member that the deceased should the accused. However the deceased proceeded while honouring the phone call so made by the accused at 2:00 P.M, however he did not come back till 4:00 P.M, though as per the written report, he had taken the jewellery of the informant for pledging the same. Search was sought to be made by the deceased, however the whereabouts of the deceased were missing. As per the written complaint dated 17.2.2010, so sought to be lodged before the S.H.O, P.S. Wazeerganj, District Budaun, an information was acceeded to the informant and the family member that the dead body was found in a hole near Hathara Road. Accordingly, a request was made to lodge the FIR. On the basis of the written complaint so sought to be made by the informant, a first information report got registered being Case Crime no.163 of 2010 on 17.2.2010 at 17:30 hours against the accused purported to be under Sections 302/201 IPC. Consequent to lodging of the FIR, S.I. Mahesh Prasad was nominated as the Investigating Officer, who according to the prosecution version prepared the site plan, panchnama and sent the body for post mortem and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 26.2.2010, investigation was concluded by the I.O, and charge sheet in Case Crime no. 163 of 2010 was submitted against the accused under section 302/34, 201, 506 IPC. It has come on record that allegations referable to commission of crime were also made against the co-accused Iliyas and Karan Singh, charge sheet was also submitted against them under Section 302/34, 201, 506 IPC, however, they were acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 687 of 2010 on 11.3.2014 by the learned Trial Court. Meaning thereby, it is only the accused herein against whom, criminal proceedings so sought to be initiated by accused herein culminated into filing of the present appeal. The case was committed for trial before the Sessions Court on 7.7.2017 and the charges under Sections 302/34, 201, 506 IPC were read over to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:

4. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

5. We have heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A, for the State-appellant.

6. Before driving in the proceedings initiated at the behest of State appellant while filing the present appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC against the judgment of acquitta