JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 17.8.1977 whereby he has acquitted the accused-respondents Mithu Singh and Hargovind Singh of the offence under section 302 and in alternative of the offence under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that one Mithu Singh informed Devilal on 24.4.74, that his wife Smt. Tejkaur has committed suicide. Thereupon Devilal brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. under section 302 IPC. After investigation F.R. was submitted by the police stating that it was a case of suicide. Thereafter on,.complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh took cognizance, re against the accused-respondents under section 302 IPC and committed the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after completion of the trial acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence as mentioned above. Hence, the State has filed this appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective and, therefore, the judgment of the learned trial court may be set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC or in alternative under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents and the judgment calls for no interference. 5. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents. We have also perused the case file carefully. 6. Undisputedly there is no eye-witness of the incident. The testimony of RW. 1 Devilal, the complainant is of no avail as in his statement nothing has been stated about the occurrence. The testimony of the other witness on which the State relies is RW. 2 Kapoor Singh (sic). Earlier when the investigation was being conducted by the police on the first information report lodged by Devilal, there was no mention of Kapoor Singh as a witness by the side of informant. Even in the application filed by Devilal, complainant before the Superintendent of Police on 6.5.75, it has not been stated that Kapoor Singh informed him about the incident at Sadulsahar after three days. Even in the application filed by Devilal, complainant before the Superintendent of Police on 6.5.75, it has not been stated that Kapoor Singh informed him about the incident at Sadulsahar after three days. For the first time only in the complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devilal has introduced Kapoor Singh as a witness. The testimony of the other witnesses also does not connect the accused respondents with the crime. Though the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the deceased Tejkaur has not committed suicide but she was killed and in our considered opinion merely on the basis of this conclusion, the accused-respondents cannot be connected with the commission of the offence as no other circumstances point out towards the guilt of the accused respondents. More so, in the absence of any recovery having been made at the instance of the accused nor any material having been produced by the prosecution connecting the accused with the crime, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view. The finding arrived at by the learned trial court on the basis of the material on record in acquitting the accused respondents Mithu Singh and Hargovind Singh calls for no interference. 7. Accordingly, the state appeals no force and the same is hereby dismissed. The bailable warrants issued by this Court against the respondents are discharged. *******