PASAYAT.J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)CHALLENGE in this appeal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, directing acquittal of the respondents. The trial Court had found the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") guilty of offence punishable under section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "IPC") read with section 34 IPC. Each of the accused persons was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - with default stipulation.
The respondents faced trial because of the following accusations:

On 10.8.2002 at about 8 in the night Dropadibai (PW 1) lodged FIR at the police outpost, Bhatnavar. It was mentioned in the FIR that at about 7 -8 a.m., complainant had gone to the agricultural field. Her husband Munshi (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") had gone to work in the shop of Bachhanlal Bania. When she returned in the evening, she enquired, about her husband from her son Banti (PW2), Arun Das, who informed her that when deceased was going to the shop at about 10 a.m. after having his meals, he was caught on way near the house of Dobalia by accused Bacchu, Satish, Avdhesh and Hariom and was beaten by them. Banti (PW2) was told to run away from the spot, otherwise he will also be beaten. Out of fear he ran back home, but had not told anyone about the incident. Then complainant Dropadi went to the house of Bacchudas Bairagi and Ramsingh Kotwar and narrated the incident. She alongwith Bacchudas and Ramsingh went to the old house of Shankar Bairagi and Hariom. The house was used as cattle shed by Bacchu. Its doors were not locked from inside. They found the deceased dead and was tied by the rope. On enquiry from neighbours Subhran told them that Bacchu, Satish, Avdhesh and Hariom had beaten the deceased and thereafter he was dragged inside the room. Rope was tied in his neck and neck was throttled, which resulted in his death. Thereafter they hanged the dead body and ran away. When complainant saw the dead body, she found injury below left shoulder and both toes were bleeding. On account of previous enmity on account of purchase of Rundh of Charnu Kirar, Bacchu claimed that he has paid Rs.1,000/ - to Charnu Kirar and he was demanding the same from Dropadi or in alternative he was asking Dropadibai to live as his wife. On the date of incident in the morning when she had gone to fetch water at the public tap, Hariom and Bacchu met her. Both the accused asked her to accompany them and it was objected by her husband Munshi. At this Hariom and Bacchu threatened Munshi with dire consequences and went back. It is mentioned in the FIR that only on account of this incident Bacchu, Hariom, Avdhesh and Satish had killed the deceased. After the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and on committal of the case to the Sessions Court, charges under section 302 read with section 34, IPC were framed. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court convicted the accused persons.

(3.)THE evidence of three witnesses, i.e., Dropadibai PW1 (widow of the deceased), Arun Das PW2 (son of the deceased) and Vinod (PW11), another child witness, were found to be of consequence by the trial Court. The trial Court found that the circumstances highlighted presented a complete chain and therefore, guilt of the accused persons was established. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as aforestated. In appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of Vinod (PW 11), the child witness was unbelievable. Similar was the evidence of Arun Das (PW2). It was noted that the silence of PW2 for about six hours was unusual. Further the evidence of Dropadi (PW 1) was at variance with that of PW2. A different version of the incident was indicated in the first information report. Therefore, the High Court concluded that prosecution has not established the accusations. .