JUDGMENT 1. - These are two appeals arising out of the same judgement : appeal No. 783/75 has been filed from the jail while appeal No. 404/75 is a representative appeal. 2. Appellants Karnail Singh, Gurmej Singh and Lakhveer Singh are related to each other. Gurmej Singh and Lakhveer Singh are nephews of appellant Karnail Singh. Bachan Singh deceased was the father-in-law of accused Karnail Singh. All these 3 appellants were involved in the murder of Bachan Singh who died of a gun shot injury. The case of the prosecution is that on 6th November, 1973 Bhim Singh PW.17 who was stationed as S.H.O. Police Station, Sangaria, received an information from one Daleep Singh F.C. that while he was on a patrolling duty, he found a dead body of some-body lying on the road side. Bhim Singh immediately went to the spot and on search he found certain papers in the pocket of the deceased. One of these papers was a receipt for the purchase of petrol. Wife of the deceased Mst. Gurdayal Kaur revealed that Karnail Singh accused came to her house and her husband Bachan Singh with an amount of Rs. 8,000/- went with Karnail Singh for the purchase of a jeep for Karnail Singh. They went to Ganganagar where it is said that a jeep was purchased in the name of Karnail Singh's son. From the investigation it was found out that after having purchased the jeep Karnail Singh, Bachan Singh in the company of Gurmej Singh and Lakhveer Singh started from Ganganagar for some place. Bachan Singh did not reach his home and was found lying dead on the road side. 3. There is no eye witness in this case. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the trial court to fasten the guilt on the accused appellants are as follows:- 1. In the case of Karnail Singh the circumstance considered is that on 5th November, 1973 he started for Ganganagar in the company of his father-in-law Bachan Singh to purchase a jeep for himself and for that purpose Bachan Singh had taken an amount of Rs.8,000/- with him. Mst. Gurdayal Kaur PW.1 and Pritam Singh PW.3 have proved this circumstances. 2. The next link in the chain of the circumstances is that Karnail Singh went to PW.4 Inderjit Singh mechanic to bargain a deed of sale of a jeep. 3. Mst. Gurdayal Kaur PW.1 and Pritam Singh PW.3 have proved this circumstances. 2. The next link in the chain of the circumstances is that Karnail Singh went to PW.4 Inderjit Singh mechanic to bargain a deed of sale of a jeep. 3. The third circumstances relied upon by the trial court is that the petrol was purchased from the petrol pump of PW.10 Rajindra Prasad receipt where of was found in the pocket of the deceased Bachan Singh. 4. The case against accused Gurmej Singh is that at his instance and on the information furnished by him one "Takua" and one Pagdi were recovered by the Investigating Officer. Accused Gurmej Singh was arrested on 8th November, 1973 and the information was supplied as late as on 19th November, 1973 and it was on that day that the recovery was effected on his instance, from his field in village Dholipal. This is only circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution against this accused. 5. Case against Lakhveer Singh rests on the following circumstantial evidence : 1. A jeep was recovered at the instance of Lakhveer Singh from the compound of one Mohan Singh vide recovery memo Ex. P.40 and that a pistol was recovered on 9th November, 1973 from his house. An empty cartridge was found lying near the dead body and was seized on 6th November, 1973. Both these articles, namely, pistol and the empty cartridges were sent for ballistic expert examination to the Director of Police Forensic Science Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is said that these articles were received by the office of the Director of Police on 26th July and 16th August, 1974. The report of the ballistic expert is Ex. P.49 and according to this report the crime cartridge was used in the pistol recovered at the instance of the accused Lakhveer Singh. 6. We have to see whether these circumstances establish the guilt of the accused persons who have been convicted by the trial court. 7. This fact is established from the statement of PW.1 Mst. Gurdayal Kaur that Karnail Singh had gone to the village of Bachan Singh on 5th November, 1973 and that Bachan Singh started for Ganganagar in the company of Karnail Singh on that very day. It is also proved that Bachan Singh had Rs. 7. This fact is established from the statement of PW.1 Mst. Gurdayal Kaur that Karnail Singh had gone to the village of Bachan Singh on 5th November, 1973 and that Bachan Singh started for Ganganagar in the company of Karnail Singh on that very day. It is also proved that Bachan Singh had Rs. 8,000/- with him which he perhaps wanted to lend to Karnail Singh for the purchase of jeep. We do not find any reason to believe Mst. Gurdayal Kaur wife of Bachan Singh. But this circumstance is not sufficient to fasten the guilt of murder on Karnail Singh. 8. The second circumstance relied upon by the trial court is that Karnail Singh went to the shop of Inderjit Singh mechanic PW.4 to strike the bargain for the purchase of a jeep but is in an innocuous circumstance. It is however established by the prosecution that the jeep was purchased in the name of Karnail Singh's son but this cannot connect the accused with the act of murder unless some other link is found out in the chain. It is true that a receipt was found in the pocket of Bachan Singh when he was lying dead but that receipt does not in any way connect Karnail Singh with the purchase of petrol from the petrol pump of PW.10 Rajendra Prasad. From that receipt it cannot be said that Karnail Singh was present at the time when the3 petrol was purchased for which a receipt was passed by Rajendra Prasad. It is also not possible to trace from this receipt that the petrol was actually purchased for the jeep. 9. The above referred 3 circumstances when considered individually and cumulatively are not sufficient to link Karnail Singh with the act of murder of Bachan Singh and on the basis of these circumstances Karnail Singh should not have been convicted for a crime under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The fact that Karnail Singh and Bachan Singh went together from the house of Bachan Singh to Ganganagar on 5th November, 1973 and thereafter a deal for the purchase of jeep was struck by Karnail Singh, does not in any manner give any indication that Karnail Singh had an evil design to do away with the life of Bachan Singh who was his own father-in-law and who had helped him by leading Rs. 8,000/- for the purchase of a jeep. In our opinion conviction of Karnail Singh on such circumstances which are in themselves quite innocuous cannot be sustained. 10. Regarding Gurmej Singh the only circumstance relied upon by the trial court is the recovery of 'Takua' and turban. The trial court has held that 'Takua' was found blood stained. But when we read this recovery in the light of the deposition of Mst. Gurdayal Kaur PW.1 then we find that both these articles were found lying near the dead body. If they were really lying near the dead body, then subsequently after about 11 days of the arrest of the accused how they were recovered at the instance of the accused. Such a recovery is nothing but a collection of an evidence which can hardly be relied upon by a court of law. It may also be mentioned here that the 'Takua' was found blood stained by the Chemical examiner. He went through the report of the Chemical examiner and we found that it was not blood stained. The circumstances taken into consideration to connect accused Gurmej Singh with the murder of Bachan Singh cannot be given any credence to connect him with the act of murder and therefore his conviction cannot be sustained. 11. Now remains the case of Lakhveer Singh. Lakhveer Singh after his arrest on 9th November, 1973 furnished an information regarding the whereabouts of the country made pistol which was recovered on that very day from his house. On 6th of November, 1973 when the S.H.O. went to inspect the dead body at the site where it was lying, he recovered an empty cartridge. Both these articles were sent for ballistic examination and they were3 received on 26th of July, 1974 and 16th of August, 1974 at the ballistic expert office respectively. According to the report of the ballistic expert Ex. P.49 the crime cartridge recovered from the side of the dead body was fired from the country made pistol which was got recovered by Lakhveer Singh. This circumstance no doubt is a very serious one to connect Lakhveer Singh with the crime but we have to see whether the prosecution has taken care by all means that the empty cartridge recovered from the site was really fired by the pistol which is said to be the weapon of offence in this case. This circumstance no doubt is a very serious one to connect Lakhveer Singh with the crime but we have to see whether the prosecution has taken care by all means that the empty cartridge recovered from the site was really fired by the pistol which is said to be the weapon of offence in this case. We carefully examined the report of the ballistic expert Ex. P49. In this report he has mentioned that the fired 9 test cartridge from the pistol out of which 5 misfired and T2 developed anvil impression. No other details have been given by him nor do we find that whether he took any photograph of the crime cartridge as well as of the test cartridges fired by him from the pistol in question. The opinion expressed by the expert is mentioned as follows:- "the crime cartridge C.I. has been fired from the pistol under reference". He has not given any reason why he has arrived at this conclusion. The report is, therefore, a cryptic one and does not provide any material for the court to judge whether the inference drawn by the ballistic expert is correct or not. 12. It may also be mentioned that the empty cartridge was seized by the investigating officer on 6th November, 1973 and the pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Lakhveer Singh on 9th November, 1973. But these two articles were not sent promptly by the Investigating Officer for examination by the ballistic expert and according to the report Ex. P49 one of the articles was received by the ballistic expert on 26th July, 1974 and the other on 16th August, 1974. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why the dispatch of these two articles was delayed. This court in Hanumrn v. The State, 1974 RLW 159 has held that the lapses on the part of the investigating officer in sending the empty cartridges cases with delay affects the prosecution story. This view finds support from the Supreme Court also in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that inordinate delay sending the incriminating articles to the ballistic expert for this opinion creates suspicious features in the case and throws a doubt on the bonafide of the investigation. This view finds support from the Supreme Court also in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that inordinate delay sending the incriminating articles to the ballistic expert for this opinion creates suspicious features in the case and throws a doubt on the bonafide of the investigation. In the opinion of the learned Judges the suspicious delay that had occurred as regards important steps in the course of investigation rendered the investigation unsafe to hold that the case of the prosecution has been established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In these circumstances we do not feel it safe to connect accused Lakhveer Singh with the murder of Bachan Singh on the basis of such a cryptic report of the ballistic expert which was given by him after such a long time. 14. For the reasons mentioned above we find ourselves unable to uphold the judgement of the learned trial Judge. We therefore allow the appeals of the appellants and acquit each one of them of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and set aside the sentence awarded to them for the said offences. All the accused persons are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******