Judgment SHRIMAL AND SHARMA, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 23, 1981 of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby he convicted accused Prabbu son of Deva under section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Ramnath and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) SUCCINCTLY speaking, short of unnecessary details, the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on 9th February, 1981 Ramnath (since deceased) was working on the field of Thakur Shivraj Singh. A verbal altercation took place between the accused and Ramnath. Prabhu lifted a Nojana (stick) and inflicted two blows on the head of Ramnath. Thereafter, Prabhu left the place. It is alleged that P. W. 4 Ramchandra witnessed this occurrence from a distance of 200 Yds. A written report Ex. p. i was given by Ganga Bishan P. W. 9. Formal F. I. R. on the basis of the written report was reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer and the same has been marked as Ex. P. 2. Ganga Bishan states in the F. I. R. that Kesra barber told him that the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other. On enquiry Kesra barber told him that the latter was informed by Kalyan Babri and Kalyan on enquiry informed that Jagdish told him about the occurrence. After registering the case, the Investigating Officer went on the scene of occurrence, prepared site plan Ex. P. 7 and inquest report Ex. P. 8. The post-mortem on the dead body was performed by P. W. 10 Dr. Gopal Lal Gupta on 10th February 1981. Post-mortem report is Ex. P. 12. A blood stained stone was seized from the site and the same was produced on record and has been marked as Ex. P. 10. Accused was arrested vide Ex. P. 14 on 14th February 1981. At the time of arrest he was wearing bloodstained shirt and a dhoti which were seized vide Ex. P. 15. On 18th February,. 981, the accused expressed his desire to get the Nojnat recovered. The information was reduced into writing and the same has been marked as Ex P. 19. In consequence to that information Nojna was got recovered at the instance of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P. 15. On 18th February,. 981, the accused expressed his desire to get the Nojnat recovered. The information was reduced into writing and the same has been marked as Ex P. 19. In consequence to that information Nojna was got recovered at the instance of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P. 17. A site plan of the house from which Nojna was recovered, was also prepared and the same bas been marked as Ex P. 16. The seized articles were sent to Chemical examination and thereafter they were sent to the Serologist. The reports of the Chemical analyst and Serologist are Ex. P. 20 and Ex. F. 21 respectively. Police after usual investigation submitted a challan and the accused was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom P. W. 4 Ramchandra was examined as eyewitness of the occurrence. P. W. I Ramdayal, P. W. 2 Jagdish, P. W. 8 Kesra did not support the prosecution case and made contradictory statements, as such they were declared hostile to the prosecution, and the learned Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine them. P. W. 9 Ganga Bishan is the author of the F. J. R. P. W. 10 Dr. Gopal Lal Gupta was examined to prove the injuries sustained by the accused as well as the post- mortem report. P. W. 12 Mahendra Pratap Singh was examined to prove the recovery of Nojna. P. W. 14 Lakhpat Ram is the Investigating Officer of this case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime, but did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statement of P. W. 4 Ramchandra as well as recovery of blood-stained Nojnat and the blood-stained clothes of the accused corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence given by P. W. 3 and found the accused guilty. He convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently urged that there are certain circumstances in the prosecution case which go to prove that the investigation was not fair. P. W. 4 Ramchandra cannot be said to be a witness of truth. He convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently urged that there are certain circumstances in the prosecution case which go to prove that the investigation was not fair. P. W. 4 Ramchandra cannot be said to be a witness of truth. He has made a vaccilating statement and it would not be safe to convict an accused under section 302 Indian Penal Code on the solitary statement of such a witness. He further submits that recovery of Nojna which was found to be stained with human blood and the clothes which were found by the Chemical Examiner as stained with blood, is unreliable. ( 4 ) THE learned Addi. Government Advocate has supported the judgment of the lower court. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Gopal Lal Gupta who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Ramnath reveals that the injuries sustained by the deceased were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and Ramnath met homicidal death. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties that there is no evidence of motive against the accused for commission of the offence. The entire case hinges on the testimony of Ramchandar. Occurrence in this case took place at 10 am. F. I R. was given at 11. 35 p. m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurence is 10 Kilometers. Evidence has come on record that Ramchandra after witnessing the occurrence bas met a number of persons in the village. Admittedly he met Jagdish, Kesra and Shivraj Singh. The deceased Ramnath was working as Sin on the field of Thakur Shivraj Singh. Ramchandra in his crose-examination admitted that he did not inform any person in the village regarding commission of the crime by the accused. Neither he told to Kesra nor Jagdish even at t he time when they called him on the field near the dead body that he bad seen the accused giving blows to the deceased. Ramchandra in his crose-examination admitted that he did not inform any person in the village regarding commission of the crime by the accused. Neither he told to Kesra nor Jagdish even at t he time when they called him on the field near the dead body that he bad seen the accused giving blows to the deceased. It does not stand to reason if Ramchandra had seen the occurrence why he kept quiet regarding such an important fact and why his name has not appeared as one of the eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. Ramchandra in cross-examination admitted that the distance between the field where he was standing at the time of occurrence and at the place of occurrence is 200 Yds. Sugar canes were growing in his own field which were 6 feet high. He further admits that his eye-sight is weak Mujhe Ankhoni Se Kum Dikhai Deta Haj and he is hard of hearing. Admittedly this witness did not raise any hue and cry at the time when the accused had assaulted the deceased. He went to the village just after the occurrence but did not care to meet the relatives of the deceased or told any person in the village about the nefarious activities of the accused. Absence of the name of this witness in the F. I. R. and his curious conduct in keeping silence does create a suspicion that he had not seen the occurence. Moreover it is very difficult to believe that a man of his eye-sight would have recognised the accused from a distance of 200 Yds specially when the sugarcane crop was growing in his own field which was obstructing the place of occurrence and where he was standing. The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the accused- appellant has himself partly doubted the statement of this witness, but has believed his statement without giving sufficient reasons to dispelling doubts arising in his statement. ( 6 ) P. w. 4 Ramchandra, the star witness of the prosecution stated that when he went at the scene of occurrence, he saw Nojna lying near the dead body. P. W. 9 Ganga Bishan, author of the F. I. R. stated that on the date when he gave the F. I R. accused Prabhu was called from the house and he was arrested by the Investigating Officer, whereas a perusal of Ex. P. W. 9 Ganga Bishan, author of the F. I. R. stated that on the date when he gave the F. I R. accused Prabhu was called from the house and he was arrested by the Investigating Officer, whereas a perusal of Ex. p. 14, arrest memo of accused shows that the arrest of the accused according to police was made on 14th February, 1981. Admittedly the name of the accused was disclosed in the F. I. R. and it appears most natural that the police officer must have called accused on the same date. It does not stand to reason why the arrest memo was prepared on 14th if the accused was already taken in custody on 10th February, 1981. It creates a doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation. Even if the recovery of Nojna is held to be proved, then also the recovery of Nojna or the blood-stained clothes in itself cannot be held to be sufficient for convicting the accused under section 302 I. P. C. Besides the statement of P. W. 4 Ramchandra, there remains the statement of P. W. 3 Mst. Gulab who stated that P. W. 4 Ramcllandra told Chhori Bhag Ia. She was confronted with her statement recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. (Ex. D. 2) in which this fact has not been mentioned. The witness instead of explaining the contradiction had the audicity to state that she did make such statement and did not know why the Magistrate failed to record her statement to that effect. Moreover the statement of Mst. Gulab gives a lie to the statement of Ramchandra who stated that he told to the girl that the accused after quarrel, had run away. The fact regarding the quarrel between the deceased and the accused is conspiciously absent in the statement of this witness recorded in the court as well as in the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 7 ) THE evidence against the accused does create the suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, how-so-ever strong it might be, cannot take place of proof. The prosecution is required to bridge the gap between the word may be truet and must be true by cogent, reliable and consistent evidence, In the absence of that, an accused cannot be convicted. We give. Suspicion, how-so-ever strong it might be, cannot take place of proof. The prosecution is required to bridge the gap between the word may be truet and must be true by cogent, reliable and consistent evidence, In the absence of that, an accused cannot be convicted. We give. benefit of doubt to the accused, set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 23rd December, ]98 [ and acquit him of all the charges framed against him. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The office is directed to send a copy of the operative portion of the judgment today to jail authorities.