Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. Heard. This appeal, preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Shillong in Sessions Case No. 7/2010, whereby said Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 20.01.2009 at about 9:30 PM a group fight said to have taken place at 4th Furlong, Shillong. On receiving the telephonic information, PW 6 Sub-Inspector C.M. Ranee along with PW 5 Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh went to the spot where they found a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. ML-05-D-9434 parked on the roadside, and a person was lying unconscious by the side of the road. Another person who was standing there disclosed his name as Kishan Dorjee (not examined) who stated that the person lying by the side of the road is his brother Santosh Dorjee (deceased). It appears that Santosh Dorjee was taken in a vehicle to Civil Hospital, Shillong from where he was taken to Woodland Hospital for further treatment. Meanwhile, First Information Report was lodged on 21.01.2009 at Sadar Police Station, Shillong where Case No. 10(1) 2009 relating to offence punishable under Section326/34 IPC were registered. During the investigation of said crime, injured Santosh Dorjee died in Woodland Hospital on 21.01.2009. As such offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC was added to Sections326/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW 6 Sub-Inspector C.M. Ranee) filed charge-sheet against the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma as they were identified correctly by Kishan Dorjee in the Test Identification Parade (for short TIP) during the investigation. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial after giving necessary copies to the two accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties on 10.12.2010 framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the two accused/respondents (present respondents) namely, Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. On this prosecution got examined PW 1 Dr. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties on 10.12.2010 framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the two accused/respondents (present respondents) namely, Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. On this prosecution got examined PW 1 Dr. B. Kharkongor (who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased), PW 2 Ranjit Singh Rumnong (an eye witness who did not name the present accused/respondents), PW 3 Ramu Narayan Swett, scribe of the First Information Report, PW 4 Syam Mang Pang (an eye witness, who also did not identify the accused/respondents), PW 5 Sub-Inspector KP Singh, who took the victim to the hospital, PW 6 Sub-Inspector C.M. Ranee, who investigated the crime and PW 7 Smti. M.B. Challam, Chief Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the Test Identification Parade (for short TIP). 7. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charge. Consequently, this appeal has been filed by the State of Meghalaya, which was admitted after the leave was granted vide order dated 02.02.2012 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 55 of 2011. 8. Before further discussion, this Court think it just and proper to mention ante mortem injuries found by PW 1 Dr. B Kharkongor, who prepared the autopsy report Ext. 1. A fracture on right temporal bone, is recorded by the Medical Officer in the report. He has also found hematoma in right fronto tempero parietal area. PW 1 Dr. B. Kharkongor opined in the autopsy report that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury caused by a blunt object. From the evidence of aforesaid Medical Officer (PW 1 Dr. B. Kharkongor), it is proved on the record that Santosh Dorjee (deceased) died unnatural death after he suffered head injury. 9. PW 2 Ranjit Singh Rumnong, an eye witness proved on the record that Santosh Dorjee was beaten by 5-6 boys but he could neither name anyone of them nor could identify anyone of them in the TIP. He told the Court that since it was a night time as such he could not recognize anyone. 9. PW 2 Ranjit Singh Rumnong, an eye witness proved on the record that Santosh Dorjee was beaten by 5-6 boys but he could neither name anyone of them nor could identify anyone of them in the TIP. He told the Court that since it was a night time as such he could not recognize anyone. In the circumstances though this witness has proved that Santosh Dorjee died homicidal death but as to the role of the present accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, his testimony is silent. What the Court has to see is as to whether or not the present accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma were the persons who assaulted with common intention to the deceased. 10. PW 3 Ramu Narayan Swett is not an eye witness and he has only proved that he lodged First Information Report (Ext. A5). In said report no one has been named as accused. As such, testimony of this witness though corroborates the incident in which Santosh Dorjee suffered injuries but as to the role of the present accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, his testimony is also of little help to the prosecution. 11. PW 4 Syam Mang Pang, an eye witness, though supported that some boys pulled out Santosh Dorjee from the vehicle and beaten him but he stated that he did not know who were they who killed Santosh Dorjee. This witness has also not named any of the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma or Beluram Sangma. As such, as to the commission of the crime by the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, there is nothing to suggest that it were they who caused the injury due to which Santosh Dorjee died, nor is there any evidence that they had any common intention with anyone in commission of murder of the deceased. 12. PW 5 Sub-Inspector KP Singh who went to the spot on receiving telephonic information is the only witness who has stated that the present accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, were the two persons who were picked up from the spot after the incident. But it is clear from his evidence that he reached on the spot only after the incident and it is hard to believe that the accused/respondents were standing there after the incident so that the Police Inspector comes there and apprehends them. 13. But it is clear from his evidence that he reached on the spot only after the incident and it is hard to believe that the accused/respondents were standing there after the incident so that the Police Inspector comes there and apprehends them. 13. The remaining witness PW 6 Sub-Inspector C.M. Ranee is the Investigating Officer who stated that after the two accused/respondents, namely, Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma were arrested they were put to Test Identification Parade, and identified by the three witnesses, namely, Shyam Mang Pang, Kishan Dorjee and Ranjit Singh Rumnong. This Court has already discussed above PW 4 Shyam Mang Pang, did not say even a single word that he could recognize the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma at the spot or that he could identify the accused/respondents in the TIP. As far as Kishan Dorjee and Ranjit Singh Rumnong are concerned, none of them were produced in the Court by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. 14. In the above circumstances, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court that the charge punishable under Section 302read with Section 34 IPC is not proved against the accused/respondents Rockystar B. Sangma and Beluram Sangma, beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with the lower court record.