Seth, J. -- 1. This appeal against acquittal is by the State.

2. Two respondents were sent up to face trial on the charges of murder of Ramubai, wife of accused No.2 Sukhram. The charge against accused No.1 Kamal was under section 302 substantively as also under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the accused No.2 Sukhram was charged under section 302 read with section 114 of the IPC. The trial Court on considering the evidence led by the prosecution acquitted both the accused f all the charges giving them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by that decision the State has come up in appeal.

3. It is no longer in dispute that the deceased Ramubai aged about 25 years was the wife of accused No.2 Sukhram; that Sukhram and his wife were tribal (Bhils) of Dhar District in M.P.; that Ramubai died a homicidal death on 11.12.2001 in a forest near village Moregoan of Dhar District. This came within the jurisdiction of Police Station Amzera with a Police out-post at Dasai. Autopsy report dated 12.12.2001 is Ex.P/9 by Dr. K.C. Shukla which shows that homicidal death was due to injury to the vital Organ (brain) causing hemorrhage and shock; injury within 24 hours of the examination.

4. Prosecution case in brief was as under. On 11.12.2001 at about 3 p.m. the said Ramubai was collecting cow-dung cakes in the forest near the village Moregaon. At that time she was accompanied by her two sisters Sukamabai and Rukhabai and one Nanibai; Ramubai sat down to attend call of nature and the companions went a little ahead when both the accused came and at the instigation of accused Sukhram, accused Kamal gave blow with a spade on the head of Ramubai whereupon she fell down; and the accused persons ran away from the spot; the incident was witnessed by the said Sukmabai, Rukhabai and Nanibai. FIR Ex.P/5 was recorded at the said police out post at 3 p.m. on 12.12.2001; this FIR was recorded at the instance of Sukmabai; investigation followed and spot map was prepared etc. On this material the prosecution sought conviction of both the accused as mentioned above.

5. The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. They have examined 3 witnesses in defence.

6. The trial Court on the material on record acquitted both the accused of all the charges. The trial Court has given both the accused persons benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the acquittal the State has come in appeal. The main grounds urged in the memo of appeal are that though Ramubai was the wife of accused Sukkhram, the accused had left her and had remarried another woman; that since then Ramubai was staying with her father and she had filed claim for maintenance against her husband. With this back-ground both accused on the date of incident came to the spot and Sukhram exhorted accused Kamal to kill Ramubai, whereupon the accused Kamal struck a blow on the head of Ramubai with a spade. Ramubai fell down and expired after some time. The trial Court had erred in disbelieving eye witnesses Sukmabai (PW5) and Rukhabai (PW8); it also erred in not accepting the supporting autopsy report; the trial Court erred in holding that there was delay in recording the FIR which had case doubts on the testimonies of the eye witnesses and the trial Court failed to consider evidence on record explaining the delay. For these reasons, State argued that the judgment of the trial Court was erroneous and deserved to be set aside, and the accused persons be punished on the charges framed against them.

7. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gobargan and others (2013)14 SCC 751 has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior Court against order of acquittal. It is there held that in an exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, can the appellate Court interfere with order of acquittal. Further held that i