JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 17, 1978 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he convicted accused appellant Wahid under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. Bichchhu (since deceased) and accused-appellant Wahid were notorious bad characters of the city of Jaipur. Wahid appellant used to loiter in the locality where deceased used to reside. The deceased had strong suspicion against the accused that the purpose behind his loitering was to tease the girls. This annoyed Bichchhu and he threw a challenge to the accused-appellant through PW. 4 Dharmdas on which Wahid reiterated that time will show who kills whom. 3. On the fateful day i.e. on October 16, 1977, Bichchhu deceased and his friend Shankar PW. 2 were together since the noon time. After taking their meals at about 8-15 or 8.30 P. M. in Captin Hotel situated in front of Mayur Cinema House, they entered the street known as Film Colony riding a bicycle. When they reached near Mayur Cinema House, accused appeared all of a sudden with a knife in his hand and gave a push to the bicycle. Bichchhu and Shankar both fell down. Bichchhu's leg got stuck in the bicycle. The accused inflicted three stab wounds with the knife on his person. Shanker remonstrated with the accused who in turn threatened him and abused him. Accused with his companion who was waiting with a bicycle at a little distance left the scene of occurrence. 4. On being informed on telephone the police arrived there without any loss of time. After the arrival of the police PW. 2 Shankar rushed to the house of the deceased and informed PW. 3 Subhash about the occurrence. Both of them came to the scene of occurrence. In the meantime Bichchhu had already been removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Both of them then went to the hospital. They found Bichchhu lying dead there. Shankar left the hospital for his home and Subhash went to the police for lodging the First Information Report Ex. P/3. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused on November 22, 1977. The arrest memo is Ex. P/1. During the course of investigation, a test identification parade was held on November 26, 1977. The identification was conducted under the supervision of Shri Navin Kumar, Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur. P/3. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused on November 22, 1977. The arrest memo is Ex. P/1. During the course of investigation, a test identification parade was held on November 26, 1977. The identification was conducted under the supervision of Shri Navin Kumar, Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur. The identification parade memo is Ex. P/2. In the test identification parade the accused-appellant was identified by PW.2 Shanker and the other accused was not identified by any person. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including PW. 2 Shanker, PW. 3 Subhash, PW. 4 Dharmdas, PW. 5 Desbandhu Sharma and PW. 1, Dr. M. R. Goyal. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement of PW. 2 Shanker sought corroboration from the statements of PW. 4 Dharmdas and PW. 5 Desbandhu regarding motive for commission of crime. On the basis of the above evidence he convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length. It will be seen that the entire fate of the case depends upon the testimony of PW Shanker whom the learned Public Prosecutor described as a witness of sterling worth. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant urged with equal vehemence that he is a putup witness, who most probably was not present at the spot. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony of PW.2 Shanker stands corroborated by the F.I.R. P. 3, Medical evidence of Dr. Goyal as well as the evidence of motive given by PW. 4 Dharmdas and PW. 5 Desbandhu Sharma and the recovery of knife Article 1. 7. Np doubt Art. 1 was recovered at the instance of the accused during the course of investigation but on examination by the Serologist the blood present on it was found disintegrated with the result that it could not be ascertained whether it was stained with human blood or not. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly not placed any reliance on this recovery. 8. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the evidence of motive is that the deceased and the accused were bad characters and each one was trying to prove his superiority to the other. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly not placed any reliance on this recovery. 8. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the evidence of motive is that the deceased and the accused were bad characters and each one was trying to prove his superiority to the other. There is nothing on record to hold that ti e deceased was inimical to the accused Wahid and Wahid alone and nobody-elsc. PW. 4 Dharmdas and 1 W. 5 Desbandhu were examined by the prosecution to prove that sometime before the recurrence Wahid bad threatened the deceased and he communicated the threats to him through these witnesses that he would ultimately prevail and kill Bichchhu. We have examined their statements carefully and are far from satisfied that they were telling the truth. For one thing, that they are close friends of Bichchhu deceased and as such their evidence needs a careful scrutiny. For another, their evidence is highly improbable and untrustworthy. Dharmdas was examined by the Police on October 24, 1977 and Desbandhu was examined on November 1, 1977. Even though a close friend of them was murdered, yet no reason has been shown as to why they could not be examined by the police early. 9. The main basis of the statement of PW. 2 Shanker. He is a close friend of Bichchhu deceased and he is also a friend of Dharmdas and Desbandhu. It appears that all the three of them belonged to a common gang which was headed by Bichchhu and opposed to the rival gang headed by Wabid. Both Desbahdhu and Dharmdas clearly stated that they know the accused very well and cross challenges were being thrown by the heads of each group. Under the circumstances, it can safely be inferred that PW. 2 Shanker also knew Wahid accused before the occurrence. 10. According to this witness the police had arrived on the scene of occurrence just after the murder, and he was also standing there at the time of their arrival. Yet it is surprising that the witness did not state any thing to the police as to how the # murder was committed. It was most natural for the witness to tell the police regarding the details of the commission of the crime and to take the injured to the hospital for providing him first aid if he would have been on the scene of occurrence. It was most natural for the witness to tell the police regarding the details of the commission of the crime and to take the injured to the hospital for providing him first aid if he would have been on the scene of occurrence. It was not expected of him to leave a close friend in danger on the road and rushing to inform his brother instead of taking him to the hospital. He would have us believe that even after going to the hospital in the company of brother of deceased and seeing the police present there he did not state any-thing to the police regarding the occurrence. 11. He was examined by the police on 18-10-1977. No explanation has come on record as to why he could not be examined either on 16th or 17th specifically when he lives in the close vicinity of the police station where the case was registered. This farther throws doubt on the veracity of this witness and lends support to the submission made by learned defence counsel that he is a put up witness. 12. The evidence regarding the identification of the accused by the witness appears to have been introduced because the accused was not named in the F.I.R. We have already mentioned that this witness in all probability must have known the accused by name and face. The evidence regarding the identification is therefore of no avail to the prosecution. 13. For all these reasons, we are of opinion that it will not be safe to maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant on the evidence of Shanker PW. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. We, therefore, accept the appeal, and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and instead acquit him. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with some other case. Sd/- K.S. Sidhu, J. Sd/- M.L. Shrimal, J.Appeal allowed. *******