S.S. Byas, J. - (1.)The State has filed this appeal against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanumangarh dated 31-8-78 by which the accused-respondents Munshi Ram and Mukhtiyar Singh were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C.
(2.)Briefly stated the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Indraj s/o Jaimal was working in his field situate in Rohi Mauja Chelasani district Ganganagat at about 10.00 or 11.00 A. M, on 25-8-(954. The accused went to that field and remained standing at some distance from Indraj. Accused Munshi Ram had a gut with him while accused Mukhtiyar Singh had a sword in his hand. Accused Munshi Ram fired a -.hot with his gun at Indraj which hit him on the back on left lumber-region. Indraj fell down. Thereafter the other accused Mukhtiyar Singh went to him and inflicted a number of blows with his sword. PW 3 Arjun and PW.4 Kheta, win were ploughing their field had witnessed the occurrence. When both the accused persons went away, these two witnesses went to Indraj and found him lying inti pool of blood. Indraj did not survive and passed away after some time. PW 3 Arjun went to PW 2 German and apprised him of the incident. PW 2 German thereupon went to Police Station, Nohar and verbally lodged report Ex. P 2 of the occurrence at about 8. 15 P, M. on 25-3-1964. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer arrived at the spot and prepared the inquest of the victim's dead body. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body, was conducted at about 10.20 A. M. on 26-8-64 at the spot by PW 1 Dr. S. N, Verma, the then Medical Officer In charge. Government Dispensary, Nohar. The post mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P I. As many as 7 incised wounds and one gun-shot wound were .found on the victim's dead body. The gut shot wounds were as follows:
(1) gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left lumber region- wound (f entrance.

(2) gun shot wound 11/2" in diameter on left side of epigistim in mid clavicular line on 9th rib.
Both these gun shot wounds were the result of single shot. The accused persons were found absconding during the investigation and standing warrants arrest were issued against them to secure their presence. They remained abscond for a pretty long time and were arrested in 1976. The police there after submitted challan against them in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Nohar, why committed the case, for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumagarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under section the Penal Code against each of the accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Both of them contended in the Court below that they were not til persons who were named as the miscreants in the First Information Report. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Addition Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charge to the accused respondents. He advanced a number of reasons which throw consider able doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. The accused- respondents were consequently acquitted of the offence they were charged-with. Aggrieved against the verdict of the acquittal, the State has taken this appeal.
(3.)We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and M/s Bhagwati Prasad and Bhagwan Adwani, learned counsels for the accused respondents under the Legal Aid Scheme. We have also carefully gone through the record on the judgment of the Court below.