Judgment :- 1. The Chittapur Police have preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court, Gulbarga dated 28-10-2004 in S.C.No.101/2002, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: On 10-12-2001 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused who are the residents of Allur (B) village caused hurt to P.W.1 Ranekappa by using a stone abusing him in using filthy language and when he started crying for help, the deceased Sharnappa, his younger brother along with P.W.2 and P.W.5 came to rescue P.W.1. When the deceased Sharnappa questioned the atrocities of the accused, Accused No.1 by taking a country made gun fired at Sharnappa and he died on the spot. On the complaint of P.W.1-Ranekappa, the inured (the brother of the deceased), a case was registered under Section 324, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. On apprehending the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. The JMFC, Chittapur committed the case to the Sessions Court. 2. 3. On appearance of the accused, they pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.21 and documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and also M.Os.1 to 14. On behalf of the accused, two documents were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, which are the portions of the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.5 recorded by the Police. 5. The Sessions Court after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, formulated the following points for consideration: “Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused have committed the alleged offences punishable U/S 324, 504, 302 R/W 34 I.P.C. and section 25 of the Arms Act?” 6. Upon appreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused were acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. by its judgment of acquittal dated 28-10-2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 7. Upon appreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused were acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. by its judgment of acquittal dated 28-10-2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 7. The main ground of attack by the State is that the Trial Court did not consider the evidence of all the witnesses and without discussing the evidence let in by the prosecution and without assigning any reasons, solely relying upon the discrepancy in the evidence of each of the witnesses acquitted the accused persons, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to the Additional State Public Prosecutor Mrs.Anuradha Desai, the prosecution has proved its case by examining P.W.1 who is the injured-complainant and also an eye-witness to the firing by Accused No.1 on the deceased by using M.O.3 which was supported by P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.11 who are the eye witnesses. Though there are some discrepancies in giving the evidence, the Trial Court without considering the fact that the witnesses are rustic villagers and illiterates and they are deposing before the court after several years after the incident and also without considering there evidence in proper perspective has acquitted the accused persons. 8. She further contends that the motive to commit murder has been proved by the prosecution by examining P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.11 and it has also proved the recovery of the material objects used for commission of offence. She further contends that the report of Ballistic Expert proved the use of M.O.3 for commission of offence. Ex.P.4 also discloses the use of M.O.3 for firing on the deceased. In the circumstances, she requested the court to examine the evidence let in by the prosecution and reverse the finding of the court below. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused Mr.Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur contends that the Sessions Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons on account of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died on account of the bullet injuries. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died on account of the bullet injuries. Taking us through the post mortem report, he contends that there is only an entry wound and there is no exit wound. When small pellets are used by using M.O.3, the pellets which would be spilled into the body should have been found while conducting the Post Mortem is the body of the deceased. The Doctor who has conducted the post mortem has not noticed the existence of such pellets inside the body. Therefore, using of M.O.3 does not arise at all. He further contends that since there were several contradictions in the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.7, the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused by giving benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, he requested the court to dismiss the appeal as the court below would be very slow in reversing the findings of the judgment of acquittal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal ist that “whether the judgment of acquittal is based on the proper appreciation of evidence or not?” 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire judgment of the Trial Court. On perusal, we noticed that the learned Judge has discussed the case of the prosecution from paragraph 1 to 8 and the reasoning commences from paragraph 9. The actual discussion of the evidence of each of the witnesses would commence from paragraph 19 and such discussion would continue up to paragraphs 92. In other words, from paragraphs 19 to 92, the learned Judge has extracted the evidence of each of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution and thereafter in paragraph 93 and 94, he has narrated the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel. From paragraphs 95 to 98, he has considered the points urged by the learned Public Prosecutor; in paragraphs 99 to 105, he has referred to the different judgments cited by both the parties. From paragraphs 95 to 98, he has considered the points urged by the learned Public Prosecutor; in paragraphs 99 to 105, he has referred to the different judgments cited by both the parties. In five lines, in paragraph 106, the learned Judge has stated how Section 34 is not attracted and in paragraph 107, he has stated that the charges leveled against the accused under section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC is not proved and further held that there was no common intention for Accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit murder of the deceased and without assigning any reason, he has acquitted all the accused persons including Accused No.1 under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, it is clear that the judgment of the Sessions Court is without appreciating the evidence let in by the Prosecution and the defence raised by the accused. 12. We would have appreciated the judgment of the Trial Court provided after discussing the evidence of each of the witnesses, if he had discussed further in regard to the proving of the case pleaded by the Prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, and thereafter, if he had held that the accused are not guilty of the offences alleged against them, we would not have interfered with the said judgment. Without assigning any reasons by incorporating the evidence stated by each of the witnesses and noting the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the court cannot acquit or convict the accused persons. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no application of mind by the Sessions Judge and the evidence let in by the prosecution has not been considered property. We have no other option than to set aside the judgment of acquittal and remand the matter to the Sessions Court by invoking our power vested under Section 386(a) of Cr.P.C. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Gulbarga dated 28-10-2004 passed in S.C.No.101/2002 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration after appreciating the evidence available on record. Since, we have set aside the judgment of acquittal, we direct the respondents 1 and 3 appear before the Sessions Court and furnish security to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court within from weeks from today.