The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.)

This appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C by the State against the judgment dated 21.05.2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra District Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1994 after taking leave to file appeal vide order dated 21.11.2003 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2431/2003 by which leave to file appeal has been granted against respondents No.1- Jagdish, No.2- Raghuveer, No.3- Kamta, No.5- Siyasharan, No.7-Laxman, No.13- Jaswant and No.17- Omprakash. During pendency of appeal respondent No.2- Raghuveer has died, and therefore, his name has been deleted from the array of respondents. Vide impugned judgment passed by the trial Court respondents No.1- Jagdish, No.3- Kamta, No.5- Siyasharan, No.7-Laxman, No.13-Jaswant and No.17- Omprakash have been acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC (Respondent No.1- Jagdish has been acquitted of charge under Section 302 & remaining of charge under Section 302/149 of IPC).

2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 06.02.1994 Uttam Singh (PW-2) alongwith his father Sitaram was in his field in village Kutoli. Pran Singh & Kallu came to Sitaram to buy fodder, at that juncture, the accused persons due to previous enmity came there armed with weapons. On seeing them, Seetaram, Uttam (PW- 2), Pran Singh and Kallu s/o Mulayam started running. The accused chased them and they ran to village Beesanpur. The accused persons also fired at them on the way. Rajendra Singh (PW-1) was grazing his buffaloes. On hearing the sound of gunshot, he reached house of Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh and Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) were present there. Kallu s/o Mulayam, Uttam, Pran Singh and Sitaram on reaching Beesanpur entered the house of Mohar Singh. When Mohar asked them, they told that accused Jagdish was coming to kill along with his accomplices. Then the deceased Mohar Singh hid these four persons in room situated at roof of his house and Mohar Singh, Rajendra (PW-1), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) stood on rooftop. Thereafter, accused Jagdish came there with his companions, started abusing, surrounded Mohar Singh's house and asked to take Sitaram out. When deceased Mohar Singh denied, accused Omprakash provoked Jagdish to shoot him, on which, Jagdish fired gunshot on Mohar Singh which hit on his neck, as a result of which he fell down and died. The accused Raghuveer, Omprakash and Laxman also fired on them, but they saved their lives by hiding themselves. The incident was seen by Kallu s/o Mulayam, Pran Singh, Sitaram, Uttam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Kallu @ Saroop Singh, Bhooti, Rajkumari, Raghuveer & Amrit.

3. The FIR (Exh. P-1) was lodged by Rajendra Singh Yadav, on which crime No.6/1994 was registered at police Station Pandokhar, Distt Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 307 of IPC. Merg No.1/1994 was also registered. Matter was investigated. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC.

4. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced by them.

5. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State as well as complainant that acquittal of accused persons from the charges levelled is not based on cogent grounds. The learned trial Court has given undue importance to the contradictions and omissions appear in the statements of the witnesses. The omissions and contradictions are of trivial nature and cannot be given undue importance. Substantially the witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution, specially the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that respondent Jagdish fired bullet from