JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The State has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 28.7.2010 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2010, State v. Dharam Ram & three others. Accused, Dharam Ram (A1), Darpan Ram (A2), Fakir Ram (A3) and Pushkar Ram (A4), were tried for the offence of Sections 302/34 IPC pertaining to crime no.08/2009 at Tehsil Munsyari, District Pithoragarh, and the trial culminated into their acquittal. So, the State has come up before us. 2. Having heard the learned State Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the accused persons, it transpires that all these accused are scheduled caste persons while the deceased Kunwar Singh was of Rajput community of village Lodh. Election of Pradhanship in village Lodh, conducted in the year 2008, allegedly became the root cause of the said incident which occurred in the evening of 10.10.2009 at 8:30 PM, when Kunwar Singh, who won the election against the accused A3, became the prey, inasmuch as, lost his life at the hands of A3 and his associates. As per the story revealed in the first information report, which could be lodged with a delay of almost a fortnight on 24.10.2009 at 2 PM, deceased Kunwar Singh left his house on 8.10.2009 to Munsyari for some official work in the capacity of Pradhan. On 9.10.2009, he performed his work in village Nachani and he was scheduled to return his home up to the evening of 10.10.2009. When he was returning home as per the above schedule, there was a Gharat (a kind of flourmill prevalent in the hills being run by the kinetic energy of flowing water) on the way of his village owned by one Ram Singh S/o Bahadur Ram. Deceased asked for a matchstick from Ram Singh because the passage ahead was quite dark. Taking such matchstick, he resumed his journey to the village. After sometime, A1 and A4 also came at the Gharat and asked for a torch from Ram Singh and after taking the same, they also proceeded on the same way. This was the basis of apprehension about the participation of accused persons in the incident. Taking such matchstick, he resumed his journey to the village. After sometime, A1 and A4 also came at the Gharat and asked for a torch from Ram Singh and after taking the same, they also proceeded on the same way. This was the basis of apprehension about the participation of accused persons in the incident. Report (Ex.Ka-5) lodged by Digar Singh (PW8), the real brother of deceased, has also disclosed that eversince the election was over, accused persons were threatening to kill his brother Kunwar Singh within a year, nonetheless, the FIR was lodged un-named. Chick report wherefor is Ex.Ka-12. 3. Body of deceased was recovered in the morning of 11.10.2009 at the outskirts of village Lodh in flowing water beneath the bridge. A number of passersby of the surrounding village and the people of village Lodh itself had assembled. Naib Tehsildar of the area was called and the inquest report (Ex.Ka-7) was prepared on 12.10.2009 at 10 AM in District Hospital, Pithoragarh. Since the body had submerged in river from dorsal side and the cause of death could not be known, so all the witnesses of inquest expressed their opinion for post-mortem. Autopsy (Ex.Ka.1) was conducted in the mortuary of District Hospital, Pithoragarh itself and as per the report of PW3 Dr. K.S. Mehta, who conducted the post-mortem, the following injuries were found on the body of deceased: - A. “Lacerated wound over right lower eyelid horizontal 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm, clotted blood present over forehead and bridge of nose. B. Contusion upper lip interior aspect over incisor teeth, bluish black 1.5 cm 1 cm. C. Abrasion right thumb 1 cm x 0.5 cm, brownish black. D. Abrasion over right wrist back of thumb 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm, brown black in colour. E. Abrasions multiple over left knee and foot. F. Contusion over lower part of neck 12 cm x 4 cm wide over back and right to midline up to 3 cm in size, tampering in one over left side of neck. Skin colour brown black. G. Contusion over upper part of lower back, size 7 x 6 cm, colour of skin brown black.” 4. As per the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred 1½ day back and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling. Skin colour brown black. G. Contusion over upper part of lower back, size 7 x 6 cm, colour of skin brown black.” 4. As per the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred 1½ day back and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling. So, the time of death almost comes what has been discussed in the above facts narrated in the first information report. 5. Investigation was primarily done by PW10 B.S. Gunjyal, Naib Tehsildar but with the interference of the District Magistrate, soon it was transferred to the regular police by order dated 17.11.2009. So, remaining investigation was conducted by PW11 Om Prakash, Inspector of Police, who culminated the same into submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-20) against all these accused persons for the offence of Section 302 IPC. Charge was, accordingly, levelled and the accused persons were put to trial. 6. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove the incident and after recording the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons, four defence witnesses were also examined. 7. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusing the impugned judgment carefully, we feel that the prosecution has not been successful in proving its case against these accused persons even the least. Firstly, there is no eyewitness of the incident. Prosecution story revolves mainly on the evidence of PW2 Ram Singh S/o Late Bahadur Ram, who is the husband of real sister of deceased. This witness claims himself to be the occular one of the incident and says that at about 7 PM of the fatal day, he was present in the house of deceased along with the latter’s wife PW4 Anuli Devi. PW4 asked him to go on the passage in order to fetch her husband deceased Kunwar Singh because it had grown quite dark and her husband was returning alone. In order to honour the wishes of PW4, he went on that passage and found near the bridge that the deceased was in the grip of all the accused persons. A1 and A4 had caughthold of his hands, A2 had caught his feet while A3 was throttling him. Having seen this, he went ahead and did not return to PW4 to explain this mishappening. He straightway went to his own village and remained silent. A1 and A4 had caughthold of his hands, A2 had caught his feet while A3 was throttling him. Having seen this, he went ahead and did not return to PW4 to explain this mishappening. He straightway went to his own village and remained silent. It is very strange that having seen his real brother-in-law in the clutches of these accused persons, he even did not make any hue and cry, much less the attempt to save his life, more so, when he was sent by PW4 to bring the deceased safely in the growing darkness of night. It is all the more strange that next day when the body of deceased was recovered by a number of villagers, he was also in the assembly of 60-70 people of village Lodh as well as of other surrounding villages, but did not disclose the complicity of accused persons in the incident to anybody, rather, for the first time, he disclosed about their complicity on 22.11.2009 i.e. after almost one month and twelve days of incident. It makes his testimony quite unbelievable. Even in his cross-examination, he has clearly accepted his absence from the spot. So, it is evident that he is a witness procured by the investigating officer and produced to depose false evidence in the Court. 8. PW1 Kharak Singh, being the close relative viz. maternal uncle of deceased, has deposed that he had seen all the four accused persons sitting near culvert of bridge. He had heard the screams around 8:30 PM coming out from that bridge. But he did not disclose the complicity of accused persons in the incident. 9. PW3 Dr. K.S. Mehta is the formal witness who conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased. 10. PW4 Smt. Anuli Devi is the wife of deceased. She is not a witness of incident. She only proves that her husband had left the house on 8.10.2009 and had to return by the evening of 10th but he did not. That apart, she has also narrated that the accused persons used to extend the threat to kill her husband for last one year. But no decisive fact has been disclosed by her also as to on what occasion, day or time, such threat was extended by the accused. That apart, she has also narrated that the accused persons used to extend the threat to kill her husband for last one year. But no decisive fact has been disclosed by her also as to on what occasion, day or time, such threat was extended by the accused. So, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved this threat perception felt by Pradhan Kunwar Singh for all the more reason that all the accused persons are Harijans and one of them is from another village. All these are neither brothers nor the close relative, so it is quite difficult to believe that they might have participated in the incident pursuant to the threat (if any) to kill the deceased Pradhan Kunwar Singh out of the revenge of winning election. 11. PW5 Dharam Singh Baseda is a formal witness. He is an inquest witness residing at a different village. So to that extent, his evidence can be read but the same cannot ascribe the guilt upon the accused persons. 12. PW6 Ram Singh S/o Bhawan Singh is a witness who was running Gharat and he has proved the arrival of A1 asking him to provide a torch as well as of the deceased Pradhan Kunwar Singh asking him to provide the matchbox because it was quite dark. Arrival of both of them are at quite different times, so simply for the reason that A1 asked him to provide him a torch at some point of time and the deceased had already taken the matchstick and proceeded on the way at some different point of time, is not enough to attribute the guilt upon the accused persons and to draw a conclusive evidence entangling him in the crime. 13. PW7 Khushal Singh is also a cousin brother of deceased. He had informed the Naib Tehsildar, Munsiyari on phone at 2 PM of 11.10.2009 that the body of deceased had been found. Yet, the Naib Tehsildar did not reduce that report into the Chick. Thus, his evidence is also not of much relevance to ascribe the guilt upon the accused persons. 14. PW8 Digar Singh is the real brother of deceased who is in some service at Pune (Maharashtra) and he is the informant and at his instance, written report was submitted to the authorities concerned to bring it to further motion. He has proved the submission of report to the authorities. 15. 14. PW8 Digar Singh is the real brother of deceased who is in some service at Pune (Maharashtra) and he is the informant and at his instance, written report was submitted to the authorities concerned to bring it to further motion. He has proved the submission of report to the authorities. 15. PW9 Govind Singh is the person with whom the deceased remained up to around 6 PM. He has proved only this fact in his deposition. Thus, his evidence is also not relevant in the nature of determining the guilt of accused persons. 16. PW10 B.S. Gunjyal is the Naib Tehsildar who was the initial investigating officer and PW11 Om Prakash is the Inspector of Police who submitted the chargesheet. This way, both these witnesses are also formal in nature and nothing has decisively come out from their evidence so that to make the booking of accused persons justified in the crime. 17. In all, we find that the impugned judgment is quite reasoned and well discussed. Nothing has come out or indicated by the learned Counsel for the State so that this Court may find the charge proved against the accused persons beyond any doubt. There is no merit in this appeal preferred by the State and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Accused persons are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the L.C.R. be transmitted to the court concerned.