Judgment Mr. Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.:- The State of Haryana has filed the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. 2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted respondents no. 1 and 2 of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 203 of IPC, whereas respondent No.3-Pratibha alias Sorbhi of the charges under Section 202 of IPC. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 31.03.2016 complaint dated 28.03.2016 moved by Anju, mother of the deceased-Nitin, was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambala alleging that Nitin had an altercation with Marvin, his sister Sorbhi, and Monu (accused Ashwani) around 4-5 months earlier, regarding which Nitin told her many times that the accused used to abuse Nitin with threats to kill him. Marvin was an employee of State Bank of Patiala and was a ‘Tantrik’ who claimed to kill any person and could bring back any person to life. It was further alleged that on 22.09.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., accused-Marvin gave a phone call to her son Nitin on which he went to his house. At about 11.30 p.m., complainant rang up Nitin and he told her that he was at the Railway Station, Ambala Cantt. with Marvin and Monu and he would come home soon. Around 1.00 am., Marvin gave a phone call on the phone of husband of the complainant, Raj Kumar that Nitin had suffered an electric current shock in the house of Marvin as a result of which, he had been taken to Rotary Hospital, Ambala Cantt. The complainant with her husband reached Rotary Hospital, Ambala Cantt., where they found that Nitin had expired and at that time, Nitin was not wearing his own clothes. As per the complainant, she had tried to make Nitin understand that he should not go to the accused but the accused used to call him by threatening him and she was confident that the accused had murdered her son, Nitin. It was because of the shock that she could not give a statement about this fact as they were simple persons and her husband, namely, Raj Kumar was not knowing about the altercation of Nitin with accused-Monu. 4. In the present case, Special Investigating Team conducted the investigation. It was because of the shock that she could not give a statement about this fact as they were simple persons and her husband, namely, Raj Kumar was not knowing about the altercation of Nitin with accused-Monu. 4. In the present case, Special Investigating Team conducted the investigation. Deputy Superintendent of Police- Suresh Kaushik, also conducted the investigation with regard to the report of the chemical examiner about the cause of the death. On 02.06.2016, the interrogation of accused-Marvin and Monu (Ashwani) was conducted and Marvin had suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.P-38) admitting his involvement in the crime and stated that the iron pipe used in the commission of the offence had been sold to one rag picker, who was not known to him. On further investigation, accused-Marvin had suffered another disclosure statement Ex.P-52, partly retracting from his previous disclosure statement and the iron pipe (measuring 22'-4" long with diameter of 1 inch) was got recovered from the terrace of his house. Another accused, namely, Pratibha, had suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.P-32), admitting her involvement in the commission of the crime. 5. On completion of investigation qua accused Marvin and Ashwani, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 08.08.2016, while qua accused Pratibha, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 12.12.2016. 6. Accordingly charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 203 IPC were framed against the accused Marvin and Ashwani, whereas, accused Pratibha @ Sorbhi was chargesheeted under Section 202 IPC on 27.02.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 19 witnesses. 8. During the course of evidence, Inspector Kamaljit Singh, (PW- 18) stated that he had interacted with Marvin and Ashwani. Both of them had suffered disclosure statements Ex.P37 and P38, admitting their involvement in the commission of crime. Similarly, accused-Pratibha had also suffered disclosure statement Ex.P32, admitting her involvement in the present case. The complainant, namely, Anju along with her husband, Raj Kumar (parents of deceased Nitin) appeared as PW1 and PW2 and deposed that Nitin had a fight with Marvin and Monu (Ashwani). Similarly, accused-Pratibha had also suffered disclosure statement Ex.P32, admitting her involvement in the present case. The complainant, namely, Anju along with her husband, Raj Kumar (parents of deceased Nitin) appeared as PW1 and PW2 and deposed that Nitin had a fight with Marvin and Monu (Ashwani). They used to threaten him to kill and Nitin had received a telephonic call from accused- Marvin at 7.30 p.m whereupon Nitin went to his house and thereafter, Marvin gave phone call to her husband, Raj Kumar (PW-2) that Nitin had suffered electric current shock and asked them to reach Rotary Hospital, Ambala Cantt. 9. The statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They were confronted with all the incriminating circumstances, which they denied and pleaded innocent. 10. In defence, Dr. J.S.Bala, Forensic Expert, appeared as DW-1, deposed about the cause of death. His opinion is as follows:- “Keeping in view all the above findings, I am of the opinion that cause of death in this case was “shock and haemorrhage due to haemothrox and hemoperitoneum” which could be the result of CPR and also rupture of vessels due to electrocution.” 11. DW2-Marvin (accused) stated that there was a religious ceremony in their house. On account of that, Nitin, who had been very well known to him and his family for the last many years, had come to the house on 22.09.2015 for helping and assisting him and suddenly, in the evening of 22.09.2015, there was heavy rainfall. Since the house of the accused was at a low level, water entered in the house. Nitin and Marvin were, therefore, removing the water from the house and on the intervening night of 22/23.09.2015, parents of DW-2, Marvin, were to catch a train. Marvin, Nitin and Ashwani went to drop them on a motorcycle. Nitin changed his clothes because of rain since his clothes were wet and before leaving for his house Nitin went upstairs to bring his mobile, which was left for charging, and he got electric shock and was later on taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, acquitted all the three accused of the various charges framed against them vide judgment dated 19.12.2018. 13. Aggrieved against the same, State of Haryana has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal. 14. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, acquitted all the three accused of the various charges framed against them vide judgment dated 19.12.2018. 13. Aggrieved against the same, State of Haryana has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal. 14. Mr. Praveen Bhadu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that as per the evidence led, the guilt of the respondents stands established and as definite opinion had been given by the doctors that haemothrox and hemoperitoneum were not on account of electric shock but the cause of death of Nitin was on account of haemothrox and hemoperitoneum i.e. due to the injuries suffered by deceased-Nitin. Moreover, Marvin, co-accused while appearing as DW-2 had admitted his presence at the time of the incident and, therefore, since the accused had been last seen in the company of the deceased and the death took place in the place of the accused-Marvin, it would be for him to explain as to in what circumstances, Nitin had expired. 15. We have heard the arguments raised by the learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the case file with his able assistance. 16. It is a case in which the co-accused i.e. respondent No.1 appeared as DW-2 and took the risk of stepping into the witness box to explain the circumstances, as to how the incident took place and was subject to cross-examination. Respondent No.1 admitted the presence of deceased- Nitin in his house, having suffered an electric current shock whereupon he was taken to the hospital by him. 17. The trial Court has found the statement of DW-2, Marvin, respondent No.1 to be truthful and accepted the same. In the present case, only motive alleged by the complainant, Anju, PW-1 and her husband, Raj Kumar, PW-2, was that 4-5 months prior to the incident the accused had a fight with their son and they used to threaten him to kill. It was also stated by the parents of the deceased-Nitin that accused used to call Nitin to their house and on 22.09.2015 Nitin went to the house of respondent No.1 and stayed there from 7.30 p.m. to 1.30 a.m. 18. To our mind, if respondent No.1 was forcibly calling Nitin, he could very well have avoided his deposition before the Court. To our mind, if respondent No.1 was forcibly calling Nitin, he could very well have avoided his deposition before the Court. Rather, Nitin went to the Railway Station with respondents No.1 and 2 to drop the parents of respondent No.1 and on coming back he wore the clothes of respondent No.1 because his clothes were wet due to rain. This fact was admitted by the complainant, Anju in her statement, which shows that there was no enmity between the respondents and deceased-Nitin. Moreover, the fight took place 4-5 months prior to the incident which fact was admitted by the complainant, Anju, PW1 in her cross examination. The other aspect which has been taken into consideration by the trial Court is that on the disclosure statement of respondent No.1-Marvin, 20 feet long iron pipe with which the alleged injuries were inflicted upon Nitin, was recovered from the terrace of the house of respondent No.1-Marvin and virtually it was not possible to inflict injuries upon the deceased with the pipe of this length. Moreover, the said iron pipe alleged to be recovered after 8 months of the incident, was said to have been concealed by respondent No.1 on his terrace. 19. In view of the above detailed discussion, in our opinion, it is clear that the Sessions Judge, Ambala has taken a possible view after considering the evidence available on record and as such no case for interference with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambala is made out especially when, the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of Nitin can be attributed by the respondents. 20. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.