1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under S.378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short "the CrPC") against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1999 in Sessions Case No.47 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under S.302, S.120 - B read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and S.135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under :
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Bhalaji - brother of the complainant along with his children was residing besides the complainant at Kolvada of Gandhinagar Taluka. It is alleged that accused No.1 - Babuji Thakor was calling deceased Bhalaji time and again for doing his household work and was also having made him to drink liquor. It is alleged that as Bhalaji was going at the place of accused No.1 frequently, he was having sexual relations with accused No.2 - Sakuben alias Shakriben, wife of accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.2 was visiting the place of deceased Bhalaji frequently. On 23.5.1997 at about 7.00 hours in the night, the complainant and Bhavna - niece of Bhalaji were seen at Balaji's residence. When Bhavnaben was going at the Galla (pan shop) through faliya, at that time, accused No.2 - Sakuben met Bhavna near the house of deceased Bhalaji and asked Bhavnaben "Is your uncle Bhalaji is at the residence, I have a work ?" Therefore, Bhavna said "yes" and told to go at home. Thereafter, on the next day, one Ranchhodji informed the complainant Kalaji at about 7.00 hours in the morning that the dead body is lying near the pond of village. Therefore, the complainant went with him at the said place and saw the dead body of Bhalaji. There were injuries on the face with sharp edged weapon and cut the portion from head till upper side. Bhavna told Kalaji that she had talk with accused No.2. It is alleged that deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben went outside together and have not returned home. Therefore, the complainant inquired about accused Nos.1 and 2 but they were not found at their residence. The accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 - brothers of accused No.1 were also not found at their residence. The complainant came to know that the accused murdered Bhalaji and ran away on previous night in rickshaw. The accused first went to hire the rickshaw of Shakraji Chaturji but as his rickshaw was not available, the accused ran away in another rickshaw. Thereafter, the complainant informed this incident to the Police Sub Inspector, Pethapur and accordingly, the offence was registered as I - CR No.88 of 1997 before the Pethapur Police Station.
2.2 After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was presented against the accused persons in the court of learned Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the said criminal case to the learned Sessions Court.
2.3 The charge was famed against the accused at Exh.8 and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.4 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined various witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.
2.5 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under S.313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above, acquitting the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni has mainly contended as follows :
4.1 That the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and the facts of the present case.
4.2 That the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the