Gohil, J. -- 1. Appellant State of M.P. has preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after obtaining leave from this Court, against acquittal. In Sessions Trial No.186/89 the respondents were tried under section 302, read with section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind. Vide judgment dated 29.6.1996 the trial Court acquitted the respondents, against which the State of M.P. has preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated prosecution story is as under:

That accused Kallu was working as Bataidar at the agricultural field of complainant Ajay Kumar at village Machchand. Kallu used to visit the house of Ajay Kumar daily, Ajay's sister Munni was married with one Jainarain. Munni had objected about the visit of Kallu at the house of Ajay Kumar and she was also objecting to keep him as Bataidar. It was also stated that Kallu had also asked for some money on loan from Jainarain, but Munni had refused to give him money. On account of this, Kallu was keeping enmity with Munni, Mahesh is having his house adjoining to the house of Ajay and there was dispute between Ajay and Mahesh for keeping the bullock-