JUDGMENT : In this criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of Cr.P.C., the State is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4.11.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in Sessions Case No.39/2014 whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. As per brief facts of the case, PW-9 Dilip Singh S/o Rughnath Singh submitted a written report Ex.P/15 on 10.7.2014 at Police Station Chitava alleging therein that on 10.7.2014, in the morning at 6 O' Clock when he awakened, his brother was not found in the house, upon search, the body of his brother Bhom Singh was lying in front of house of his uncle Prahlad Singh. Allegation was levelled by the complainant against the respondent Prahlad Singh. Upon aforesaid report, FIR No.110/14 was rejected at Police Station Chitava and investigation was commenced by the police. 3. The police after usual investigation filed challan against the respondent Prahlad Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kuchman City from where the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Parwatsar (Nagaur) for trial. 4. The trial Court after hearing arguments for framing charge, framed charges against the respondent for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The respondent denied the charges levelled against him and prayed for trial. 5. In the trial, statement of 13 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 28 documents were exhibited but in spite of granting opportunity to lead evidence in defense, no evidence was led by the respondent. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments finally acquitted the respondent Prahlad Singh from the charge levelled against him for offence under Sections 302 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 4.11.2015. 7. The State of Rajasthan is seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although most of the witnesses turned hostile but on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondent, therefore, it is a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 4.11.2015. 9. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, we have perused the finding given by the trial Court. 9. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, we have perused the finding given by the trial Court. In the trial PW-1 Amar Singh, PW-2 Prem Singh, PW-3, Dilip Singh, PW-4 Shyopal Singh, PW-10 Bahadur Singh, all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also obvious that witness PW-9 Dilip Singh – complainant stated before the Court in his statement that ^^Hkkseflag dks izgyknflag us ekjk bldh eq>s 'kadk gSA in the cross-examination, it is stated by him that eSaus Hkkseflag dks ekjrs gq, fdlh dks ugha ns[kk Fkk] eSaus rks 'kadk ds vk/kkj ij fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ FkhA** 10. It emerges from the facts that PW-9 Dilip Singh is real brother of Bhom Singh and being complainant, filed complaint upon apprehension that Prahlad Singh might have killed his brother. Learned trial court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case and above evidence gave finding that in this case the prosecution has failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, if eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and complainant himself stated before the Court that FIR was filed by him only on the basis of suspicion then it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court further observed that PW-5 Marudhar Kanwar also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court to acquit the respondents. 11. In view of above, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 4.11.2015. Consequently, the instant criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.