- (1.) State has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 25.8.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot in S.T. No. 157 of 2008 arising out of case crime No. 963 of 2008, State v. Shiv Autar, Ram Autar, Raja and Nathu under Sections 302 read with 34 and 506 IPC whereby learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. We have heard learned AGA for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment. Briefly stated the prosecution case, is that on 3.9.2008 a written report was lodged at P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot by the informant Kusma Devi to the effect that in the intervening night of 2/3.9.2008 when her son, husband and she herself were sleeping at their 'Dera', at about 1.00 a.m. she and her husband got awaken after hearing the shrieks of her son Ballu and saw accused Shiv Autar having a spade, accused Ram Autar and Raja having 'Barchhis' in their hands, inflicting injuries on their son. When she and her husband shouted for help, the accused persons gave a fatal blow by the spade they were carrying, on the head of her son. As a result Ballu died on the spot. After committing the murder of Ballu the accused persons threatened the informant and her husband not to dare to lodge any report otherwise they would also be killed.
(2.) On the basis of this report a case against accused persons was registered and the matter was investigated. The investigating officer inspected the spot and he recovered a Barchhi and a spade from there. The inquest and the post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where charges were framed against the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed their trial.
(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as nine witnesses. The mother and father of deceased Ballu were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively. Apart from these two witnesses no other witness of fact was produced by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution are of formal character.;