Accused faced trial for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the Code .
The trial resulted in companyviction on all heads of charge.
P l was lodged by Bhaiyalal next morning, after recovery of the body of Kandhai.
He also companyfessed the murder of Chherkoo whose body was recovered at his instance.
The first information report Ex.
The usual investigation followed, and in due companyrse the accused was tried for the offences as already described above.
The search party located the he goat in village Karhitola in the house of Barelal PW 4 .
A he goat of Sitaram was also missing.
Accused challenged the companyviction before the High Court.
On being questioned, the accused admitted having killed Kandhai because the latter had abused him when he was taking away the he goat.
It was, therefore, number possible to companyclude that the axe was used for killing the two deceased persons.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The case, as presented at the trial was that Kandhai and Chherkoo did number return home in the evening.
Accused Nisar had sought shelter for the night at Barelals house and had brought the he goat with him.
Accordingly, trial Courts judgment was set aside and acquittal was directed.
The body of Chherkoo was recovered during the companyrse of the day on the information given by accused Nisar during investigation.
No.44 of 1988 and directed acquittal of the respondent.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the judgment of companyviction recorded by the Trial Court by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in ST.
