JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 13.11.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur acquitting the accused-respondents of offence under sections 302 & 302/34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 6.10.1996 PW 6 Malkiyat Singh submitted a written report Ex.P/6 at police station Sri Karanpur stating that in the morning respondent-Nathu Ram who was serving in the Water Works Department visited the house of his brother Jaswant Singh and questioned him as to why he had put sugar in the tankers of the tractors. This allegation was refuted by Jaswant Singh. This led to verbal altercation between them. Nathu Ram alongwith two tractor drivers went to the police station to lodge the report against Jaswant Singh. While they were returning after lodging the report, Jaswant Singh was seen standing at the cross road. Seeing him, Nathu Ram and his associates ran after him. As Jaswant Singh did not return to house, his wife went in search. She found his dead body in the field of Darshan Singh near water course. The informant was told by Charan Das that while he was cultivating the field of Darshan Singh, at about 12.05 p.m., he saw Nathu Ram and Jagir killing Jaswant Singh by strangulation. On the basis of this information, police registered the case of offence under section 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, police led charge-sheet against the three respondents for offence under sections 302 & 302/34 IPC. 3. The respondents denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 15 witnesses. The accused persons in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against them. Analysing the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not of the nature which may bring home the guilt of the accused-respondents. Accordingly, the learned Judge acquitted all the three respondents of the charges levelled against them. 4. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective. It is submitted that the evidence of PW 11 Prakash Kaur (wife of deceased Jaswant Singh) clearly establish that the accused persons committed murder of her husband Jaswant Singh. 4. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective. It is submitted that the evidence of PW 11 Prakash Kaur (wife of deceased Jaswant Singh) clearly establish that the accused persons committed murder of her husband Jaswant Singh. It is pointed out that she has named all the three accused- respondents who were found standing in the house of Nathu Ram with her husband. They were in drunken condition. A quarrel had taken place between them. She asked her husband to come back to home and all the three accused persons threatened him of dire consequences. This statements, finds corroboration by the statement of PW 6 Malkiyat Singh and PW 9 Vidhya Devi. On the other hand, Mr. M. L. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 5. We have carefully scanned the prosecution evidence and considered the rival conditions. The prosecution has examined PW 9 Vidhya Devi as eye-witness. She has stated that on the day of incident, she was in the field and cutting the grass. At about 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. she found Jaswant Singh corning to the field alongwith Chetram. A jeep came from the side of Karanpur occupied by Sawaran Singh and two others. She also stated that the said two drivers were staying in the house of accused-Nathuram. In the field of Darshan Singh, she witnessed the neck of her husband being pressed by two drivers and Nathu Ram. It is not in dispute that the statement of this witness was examined after nine days of the incident. The prosecution has tried to explain the delay by saying that Mst. Vidhya was not well. However, no material has been produced to show that she was not keeping good health. She has also stated that she narrated the incident to her son Gappar. However, Gappar Singh has nowhere stated that his mother came to him and narrated the incident. Thus, we are in agreement by the view taken by the trial Court that the statement of Mst. Vidhya does not inspire the incident. She has also stated that she narrated the incident to her son Gappar. However, Gappar Singh has nowhere stated that his mother came to him and narrated the incident. Thus, we are in agreement by the view taken by the trial Court that the statement of Mst. Vidhya does not inspire the incident. As far as PW 11 Prakash Kaur is concerned, she has stated that Gappar Singh told her that the accused-Nathu Ram alongwith two accused persons strangulated her husband Jaswant Singh but Gappar Singh in his statement before the Court has not supported this fact. In view of this, the trial Court rightly rejected the testimony of PW 11 Prakash Kaur. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish any circumstance appearing against the appellant leading to the inference that Jaswant Singh was killed by the respondents. Thus, finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, thus appeal is rejected being devoid of merit. The bail bonds executed respondents stand discharged.Appeal rejected. *******