JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated February 20, 1985 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur convicted the three appellants Ramjeewan, Shiv Karan and Mangi Lal under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/ in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. By the same judgment, he also convicted them under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to one month's simple imprisonment. The accused have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction. 2. PW 4 Kumari Indra is the daughter, PW 5 Smt. Baluri is the widow and PW 8 Hemaram is the son of the deceased-victim Kesa Ram Jat, aged about 42 years at the time of his murder. They are residents of village Paldi Vyasan, at the relevant time (January, 1984) they were living in a Dhani, which they had raised in their field as shown in site plan Ex. P20. The deceased had's own Grams and Raida crops in his field. The appellants are also residents of the fame village Paldi Vyasan PW 9 Smt. Chuki is the mother of appellant Shivkaran. The remaining two appellants Mangilal & Ramjeewan are the cousins of Shivkaran. The prosecution case is that PW 9 Smt. Chuki, aged about 45 years, developed illegal intimacy with the deceased Kesa Ram Jat. Accused Shiv Karan, therefore, harboured ill-will against Kesa Ram. In the night between 27th and 28th January, 1984, Kesa Ram was sleeping in open on a cot on the extreme Northern side of the field which was nearly 200 yards away from his Dhani. PW 4 Kumari Indra, PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram were sleeping in the Dhani. In the mid night, they heard the cries of Kesaram "Maare Re Maare Re." They got up and rushed towards him and found the appellants striking blows to Kesaram with the lathis Smt. Chuki (PW 9) was also present there. She too was not spared by the appellants and was inflicted injuries. Kumari Indra, Smt. Baluri and Hemaram started crying and seeing them, the appellants sped away dragging Smt. Chuki with them. These three witnesses went to Kesaram & found him dead. She too was not spared by the appellants and was inflicted injuries. Kumari Indra, Smt. Baluri and Hemaram started crying and seeing them, the appellants sped away dragging Smt. Chuki with them. These three witnesses went to Kesaram & found him dead. He had multiple injuries on his body and blood was oozing out from the injuries The blanket, quilt and the clothes of the deceased were found smeared with blood. PW 8 Hemaram went to his cousin Rugharam (PW 3) and told him that his father has been murdered. PW 3 Rugharam went to Nagaur where his father Sujan (PW 10) had gone for some private work. At about 9.00 or 10 00 a.m. Rugharam reached Nagaur on a bicycle, contracted his father Sujan (PW 10) and told him that Kesaram was murdered. Sujan advised him to go back to the spot and told that he would come in a bus Sujan (PW 10) reached the scene of the occurrence in the noon and found the deceased's widow, son and daughter weeping and crying. From there, he straight away went to Police Station, Khinvsar and verbally lodged report EX.P 11 of the incident at about 2.00 p m. The police registered a case under Section 302, IPC. The investigation ensued. The Station House Officer Shanker Lal (PW 12) arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan and the site inspection note. He also prepared the inquest of Kesaram's dead body. He found one lathi, one Odna and many other articles lying scattered around the dead body. He seized and sealed them. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 2.30 a.m. on January 29, 1984 by PW 6 Dr. J.K. Jalan, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre Khinvsar The doctor noticed as many as seventeen ante mortem injuries on the victim's dead body, as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. P. 7. In the opinion of Dr. J.K. Jalan, the death was due to coma, as there were multiple injuries over the body and on right leg fracturing the tibia febula bones with tearing muscles, nerves and blood vessels causing the severe haemorrhage and there was fracture of frontal bone tearing the membrane, brain material multiple) and cerebral blood vessels causing the service cerebral haemorrhage and death. The blood-stained cloths of the deceased were seized and sealed. The blood-stained cloths of the deceased were seized and sealed. The injuries of Smt. Chuki were also examined. Multiple injuries with fracture of radues were found on her person. The injury reports are Ex. P 13 and Ex. P 14. The appellants were arrested on February 17, 1984 and in consequence of the informations furnished by accused Ramjeewan and Mangi Lal, two lathis were recovered, one of which had stains of blood on it. On chemical examination, the cloths of the deceased and the lathi recovered at the instance of accused Mangi Lal were found stained with human blood. On the completion of investigation the police submitted a crime report against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447, 302/34 and 325/34, IPC against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. They denied their presence on the spot of the occurrence and their, involvement in the murder of Kesaram. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge found the charges under Sections 447 and 302/34, I.P.C. duly proved against the appellants, but not under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. in respect of causing injuries to Smt. Chuki (PW 9). The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 3. We have heard Mr. Doongarsingh learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. Mr. Doongarsingh did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Jalan (PW 6) relating to the cause of death of Kesaram. We have also gone through his statement and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. As per statement of Dr. Jalan seventeen ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Kesaram with numerous fractures. His death was, thus, homicidal and in assailing the conviction, it was contended by Mr. Doongar Singh that PW 4 Kum. Indra PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram had been wrongly treated as witnesses of truth by the trial Court. Jalan seventeen ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Kesaram with numerous fractures. His death was, thus, homicidal and in assailing the conviction, it was contended by Mr. Doongar Singh that PW 4 Kum. Indra PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram had been wrongly treated as witnesses of truth by the trial Court. It was contended that they had not seen the incident and have falsely introduced themselves as ocular witnesses in order to implicate the appellants. It was argued that as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW 8 Hemaram went to PW 3 Rugharam to apprise him of the incident. It is difficult to believe that had Hemaram seen the incident, he would have not disclosed the names of the miscreants to Rugharam PW 3, who is none but his own first cousin. PW 10 Sujan is the father of PW 3 Rugharam and the real brother of the deceased victim Kesaram. Sujan PW 10 on being apprised of the murder of his brother by Rugha Ram PW 3, came to the spot of the occurrence and found the three eye witnesses sitting near the dead body. It was argued that it is inconceivable that Sujan, without ascertaining the particulars of the incident from these three eye witnesses would straight-way go to the Police Station to lodge the report. In FIR Ex. P 11, neither the names of the assailants nor the names of the three eye witnesses have been mentioned. It was further argued that the three eye witnesses were present when the Investigating Officer inspected the site, prepared the site plan, site inspection note and the inquest report of the victim's dead body. But, none of them disclosed to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the incident and the miscreants who had killed their father or husband. The names of these eye witnesses and the names of the appellants are conspicuously absent in the inquest report, site plan and the site inspection note. These infirmities are vital and important seriously damage the prosecution case and destroy completely the claim of the eye witnesses to have seen the incident. The learned Sessions Judge failed to give due consideration to these infirmities and erred in accepting the evidence of the three eye witnesses at its face value. These infirmities are vital and important seriously damage the prosecution case and destroy completely the claim of the eye witnesses to have seen the incident. The learned Sessions Judge failed to give due consideration to these infirmities and erred in accepting the evidence of the three eye witnesses at its face value. It was further argued that the story of extra-judicial confession of the accused persons was a pure fabrication and concoction. It was also argued that the only possible witness of the incident, if there could be any, was Smt. Chuki PW 9. But she turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution. The conviction of the appellants was, therefore, wholly erroneous and unsustainable. 5. Countering these contentions, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the three eye witnesses, through close relatives of the deceased had no bias against the appellants. It is inconceivable that they would falsely implicate the appellants in absence of any enmity. The Court below had, after a detailed analysis and scrutiny of the evidence of the three eye witnesses, found their evidence trustworthy and reliable. The approach of the learned trustworthy Judge is not perverse or manifestly erroneous. It was also submitted that the accused made the extra-judicial confessions while taking Smt. Chuki PW 9 with them after the commission of the murder. It was quite natural on their part to boast and say that they can kill her Chuki's paramour Kesaram and would now kill her. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. PW 10 Sujan appeared at Police Station. Khinvsar at about 2.00 p.m. on January 28, 1984 and verbally lodged report Ex. P 11. It is necessary to read Ex P 11 for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised by Mr. Doongar Singh. Ex. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. PW 10 Sujan appeared at Police Station. Khinvsar at about 2.00 p.m. on January 28, 1984 and verbally lodged report Ex. P 11. It is necessary to read Ex P 11 for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised by Mr. Doongar Singh. Ex. P 11 reads as under: bl oDr Jh lqtku iq= jkeo{k] dkSe tkV] mez 50 o"kZ] is'kk [ksrh] lkfdu ikyM+h O;olku us gkfto Fkkuk gksdj tqckuh fjiksZV ntZ djkbZ fd esjk NksVk HkkbZ dsljke tkV tks jkf= ds le; ljikyk [ksr es mukyh dh j[kokyh djhc Ms eghus ls djrk gS vkSj jkf= es [ksr es jgrk gS] mukyh es jk;M+k vkSj pus gS tks [ksr ikyMh dh dkad.k es gS] eS ukxkSj dh rjQ x;k gqvk FkkA vkt esjk yM+dk :/kkjke esq ukxkSj cqykus vk;k o rjQ x;k gqvk FkkA vkt esjk yM+dk :/kkjke esq ukxkSj cqykus vk;k o mlus eq>s crk;k fd dsljke dh yk'k [ksr es iM+h gSA mldk fdlh us dRy dj fn;k gS] dRy fdlus fd;k uke ekywe ugh gSA mlds cnu ij dgka pksVs vkbZ gqbZ gS eq>s ekywe ugh A gekjk fdlh ij Hkh dRy djus dk 'kd ugh gSA e`rd dslkjke [ksr es gh jgrk FkkA vklikl es vkSj Hkh mukfy;k gSA Hkz`rd dsljke dh mez 40&42 o"kZ dh gSA gekjs igys fdlh ls Hkh eqdnesckth ugh gqbZ vkSj u gh fdlh ls nq'euh gSA yk'k dks eSus xkWo tkdj nwj ls ns[kh gS tks ljgn ikyMh O;olku [ksr ljikyk ds mrjok.kh ekB ij iM+h gSA mlds jtkbZ o dEcy vksMh gqbZ gSA eSus ikl tkdj e`rd dh pksVs ugh ns[khA e`rd dslkjke dk dRy xu jkf= es gqvk gSA e`rd dh ok.kh fn[kkukM+h ekB ij vkbZ gqbZ gSA mls ok.kh es mldh vkSjr o cPps FksA etewu tqckuh fjiksZV izkFkhZ dks idj lqukbZ] lgh gksuk Lohdkj dj fu'kku vaxq"B fd;kA 7. Admittedly the names of the appellants as the miscreants and the names of the eye witnesses are not disclosed in the FIR Ex P 11. The omission of their names in Ex. P 11, if they were not known to PW 10 Sujan, is not at all fatal to the prosecution The contention of Mr. Admittedly the names of the appellants as the miscreants and the names of the eye witnesses are not disclosed in the FIR Ex P 11. The omission of their names in Ex. P 11, if they were not known to PW 10 Sujan, is not at all fatal to the prosecution The contention of Mr. Doongar Sing is that Sujan PW 10 must have had ascertained the names of the miscreants and the eye witnesses when he arrived on the spot, and had the eye witnesses seen the incident, they would have disclosed the names of the miscreants to Sujan PW 10. It is inconceivable that Sujan PW 10 made no efforts to ascertain the name of the miscreants. The contention has considerable force. 8. The three eye witnesses PW 4 Kum. Indra, PW 5 Smt. Balpuri and PW 8 Hemaram stated that in the mid night they woke up on hearing the cries of Kesaram (their father and husband) "Maare Re Maare Re". They rushed towards him and found the appellants striking blows to him with lathis PW 9 Smt. Chuki was also present there. They, thus, claimed to have seen the incident and the appellants striking blows to the deceased victim. 9. Now, PW 3 Rugharam, who is the son of Sujan (PW 10) the real brother of the deceased victim, stated that before the crack of dawn PW 8 Hemaram came to his house and told him that his father had been murdered. Though Hemaram (PW 8) denies this fact, but his denial is false. PW 3 Rugharam is his real first cousin and it is inconceivable that Rugharam would introduce a false story of Hemaram's coming to him. Rugharam stated that Hemaram came to him, told him that his father was killed stayed only for a minute and then went away. He stated that Hemaram did not disclose the names of the miscreants who had killed his father Hemaram also did not state that he or his mother or sister had seen the incident and the appellants killing his father. He further stated that he also did not inquire from Hemaram as to who had killed his father. He further admitted that Hema Ram told him that his father was killed on the extreme Northern side of his field. He further stated that he also did not inquire from Hemaram as to who had killed his father. He further admitted that Hema Ram told him that his father was killed on the extreme Northern side of his field. If Hemaram could tell that his father was killed on the extreme Northern side of his field it is inconceivable that he would not have disclosed the names of the appellants as the miscreants to this witness. PW 10. Sujan is the father of PW 3 Rugharam and the real brother of the deceased Kesaram. He stated that on January 28, 1984, he was at Nagaur. At about 9.00 or 10 00 a.m. on that day, his son Rugharam came to him at Nagaur and informed him that Kesaram had been murdered. Rugha Ram did not tell him who had killed Kesaram. He (witness) boarded a bus and arrived on the spot. He saw the dead body of Kesaram lying on the extreme Northern side of his field, and his widow, son and daughter weeping. He straight-way went to Police Station, Khinvsar and lodged report Ex. P11. In his cross-examination he admitted that Tejaram (PW 2) (stating about the extra-judicial confessions of the appellants) was also sitting near the dead body. He stated that he had not talks with the widow, son or daughter of the deceased before he went to Police to lodge the report Ex. P 11. It is inconceivable that he (witness) came on the spot saw the dead body of his brother, his widow, son and daughter sitting and weeping near the dead body and yet he made no inquiries from them as to how the victim was done to death. It is also inconceivable that the deceased's widow, son and daughter (PW 4. Ku. Indra, PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram) had no talks with him. Admittedly, they had not disclosed the names of the appellants as the assailants of Kesaram. We are unable to imagine that if these three eye witnesses had seen the incident and the appellants as the assailants, they would have not narrated at least the out line of the incident to this witness Sujan (PW 10). The reason why they did not disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants to this witness is apparent and floating on the face. The reason why they did not disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants to this witness is apparent and floating on the face. They did not disclose the appellants as the assailants because they had not seen them committing the murder of Kesaram. Had they seen the appellants committing the murder of Kesaram there was no reasons for them not to disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants to this witness Sujan. We are usable to conceive that Sujan (PW 10) would rush to the Police Station to lodge the report without ascertaining from the eye witnesses as to how the incident had taken place. We quietly appreciate the anxiety on his part to rush to police, but are unable to conceive that he would rush to the police without having a talk with the deceased's widow, son and daughter. The circumstances impel us to conclude that he had a talk with PW 4 Kum. Indra, PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram before rushing to the police. These witnesses did not disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants for the simple reason that they had not seen the appellants committing the murder of Kesaram. 10. PW 5 Tejaram has spoken about the extra-judicial confessions of the appellants. He was sitting near the dead body when PW 10 Sujan reached there Tejaram PW 2 well knew through the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant that they had committed the murder and yet he also did not disclose to PW 10 Sujan that the appellants were the perpetrators of the murder of Kesaram. 11. The three eye witnesses were faced with a serious problem due to the omission of the names of the appellants in FIR as the assailants. To over-come this problem they thought of a false explanation. They stated that PW 8 Hemaram did not go to PW 3 Rugharam but this fact stands contradicted by the statement of PW 3 Rugharam who stated that PW 8 Hemaram came to him and informed him of his father's murder. Rugha Ram, being the real nephew of the deceased-victim, in all probabilities must have asked Hema Ram as to who had killed his father. Likewise Hema Ram PW 8 when went to Rugha Ram to inform him of his father's murder, must have told him the names of the assailants. Rugha Ram, being the real nephew of the deceased-victim, in all probabilities must have asked Hema Ram as to who had killed his father. Likewise Hema Ram PW 8 when went to Rugha Ram to inform him of his father's murder, must have told him the names of the assailants. But names of the assailants could not be told to Rugha Ram by PW 8 Hema Ram because he and others bad not seen the appellants as the assailants of Kesa Ram. PW 10 Sujan covered a long distance from Nagaur to the place of the incident and it is unimaginable that be would rush to the Police Station without ascertaining the facts of the incident. The names of the assailants were not disclosed to him by the eye witnesses as they had not seen appellant committing the murder of Kesa Ram. It is why the names of the appellants as the assailants are not there in the First Information Report Ex. P 11 Since these three witnesses have not seen the incident their names were also not mentioned as the eye witnesses in the FIR Ex. P.11. In these circumstances, the non-mentioning of the names of the appellants in the FIR Ex. P. 11 makes the entire prosecution case highly suspicious against them and indicates their false implication. 12. The Investigating Officer PW 12 Shanker Lal arrived on the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. P 20 site inspection note Ex. P 1, inquest report Ex. P 2 and Panchanama Ex P 3 of the victims dead body all these documents were prepared on the spot where the dead body was lying. The three eye witnesses PW 4 Kum. Indra. PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hema Ram, and PW 2 Teja Ram (before whom the extra-judicial confessions were alleged to have been made by the appellants) were present when these documents were prepared. Curiously and strangely enough, they did not come forward at that time to slate that they had seen the appellants committing the murder of Kesa Ram. PW 2 Teja Ram also did not disclose the extra-judicial confessions when these documents were prepared and did hot state that the appellant had committed the murder of Kesa Ram. The omissions of the names of the appellants as the assailants in these documents and the omission of the names of PW 4 Kum. PW 2 Teja Ram also did not disclose the extra-judicial confessions when these documents were prepared and did hot state that the appellant had committed the murder of Kesa Ram. The omissions of the names of the appellants as the assailants in these documents and the omission of the names of PW 4 Kum. Indra, PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hema Ram as ocular witnesses of the incident in these documents, strongly suggest that the names of the assailants could not be ascertained by that time. If the eye-witnesses had seen the incident, there was no reason on their part not to disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants to the Investigating Officer when there documents were prepared. Their not disclosing the names of the appellants as the assailants and their being the eye-witnesses of the incident before the Investigating Officer at this crucial time are the serious circumstances which cannot be lightly ignored while assessing and evaluating their testimony. If the witness had seen the commission of the murder and yet remains silent and does not come forward before the Investigating Officer to disclose what he had seen, it casts a serious doubt about his presence and his assertion to have seen the incident. The inquest report and the site inspection note are documents of vital importance as they give an early version of the occurrence. The omission of the names of the assailants and the eye-witnesses in these documents is a significant infirmity in the given circumstances of the instant case. 13. As regards the evidence of extra-judicial confession the testimony of PW 2 Tejaram is wholly incredible and carries no value. He stated that in the mid-night he was going to his field. In the way, he met the appellants and PW 9 Smt. Chuki. They were uttering that they had killed the enemy and they would now kill her (Smt. Chuki) We have already discussed above that he did not disclose this extra-judicial confession to PW 10 Sujan when the latter had come on the spot before going to the police station It is also difficult to conceive that in the mid-night of January, the witness would go alone to his field. He had invented the story of his going to the field only to fabricate his evidence of extra-judicial confession and to show how he heard the appellant making the confession. He had invented the story of his going to the field only to fabricate his evidence of extra-judicial confession and to show how he heard the appellant making the confession. We find no worth in the testimony of this witness. The story of the appellants' making the extra-judicial confession is a pure concoction. 14. From the aforesaid analysis of the prosecution evidence, the conclusion to which we arrive at, are: (1) Hema Ram did not disclose the name of the appellant as the assailants to PW 3 Rugharam because he had not seen the incident and the appellant committing the murder of his father; (2) PW 10 Sujan, who came on the spot, must have made inquiries from PW 4 Ku. Indra, PW 5 Smt. Baluri and PW 8 Hemaram, but they did not disclose to him that the appellants were, the assailants, and they had seen them committing the murder of Kesaram. It was because these witnesses had not seen the incident and the appellants committing the murder of Kesaram It is interesting to note that as per statement of PW 2 Tejaram, these' three eye witnesses disclosed the names of the appellants as the assailants to the deceased's brother Budharam when he came on the scene of the occurrence, Sujan (PW 10) came after when Budharam bad arrived on the spot. When Sujan came, Budharam was present. Budharam has not been examined by the prosecution nor was cited as a witnesses in the Calender of witnesses. If the name of the assailants could be disclosed to Budharam, there was no reason on the part of the eye witnesses not to disclose the names of the appellants as the assailants to PW 10 Sujan before he went to the police station to lodge the report; (3) the name of the appellants as the assailants and the names of the eye witnesses were not disclosed to the Investigating Officer when he inspected the site and prepared the inquest report and the Panchanama of the victim's dead body; and (4) the extra-judicial confession does not stand proved. 15. These are disturbing and disquetenting features and badly impair the prosecution case. These infirmities cannot be lightly passed over. 16. The learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration that the Lathi recovered at the instance of the appellant Ramjeewan and Mangi Lal were found stained with blood. 15. These are disturbing and disquetenting features and badly impair the prosecution case. These infirmities cannot be lightly passed over. 16. The learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration that the Lathi recovered at the instance of the appellant Ramjeewan and Mangi Lal were found stained with blood. The approach of the trial court is erroneous on the face. The Lathi, at the instance of the appellant Ramjeewan was recovered on February 2, 1984, vide seizure memo Ex. P. 5 This seizure memo shows that no blood stains were found on that Lathi The prosecution evidence does not show that this Lathi, recovered at the instance of accused Ramjeewan was at all sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 17. Of course, two Lathies were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. One of these Lathis stained with blood, was found on the spot, vide site inspection note Ex. P 1 this Lathi has been described in Bx. P 1 as "LAKRI EK BAANS KEE PHATI HUI, KHOON AALUDA". This was sent for chemical examination Report Ex. P. 10 of the State Forensic Laboratory show that this "Lakri" was found stained with human blood. The learned Sessions Judge took this "Lakri" to be that recovered at the instance of accused Ramjeewan. No human blood could be detected on the Lathi recovered at the instance of accused Mangilal due to the disintegrated blood stains. As such the recoveries of Lathies have no evidentiary value and do not furnish any incriminating material against the appellants. 18. It is true that the deceased Kesaram was sleeping in open on a cot on the Northern-most side of his field in that fateful night. PW 9 Smt. Chuki was, no doubt, with him. He was murdered there and Smt. Chuki was also beaten in that incident But none, except Smt. Chuki (PW 9) had seen the incident. Smt. Chuki was, thus the best witness to state how the incident had taken place, who were the assailants and how the injuries were inflicted to the deceased Kesaram and to her. However, she lent no support to the prosecution and adopted a hostile attitude. We can well understand the reason for her hostile attitude because accused Shivkaran is her son and the remaining two are the sons of her husband's brother. However, she lent no support to the prosecution and adopted a hostile attitude. We can well understand the reason for her hostile attitude because accused Shivkaran is her son and the remaining two are the sons of her husband's brother. The presence of Smt. Chuki (PW 9) does raise a suspicion that as the appellants did not like her company with the deceased, they wanted to finish him. But suspicion cannot be substituted for proof required to prove a charge in a criminal case. In S.B. Sarda v. The State of Maharashtra 1984 Cr. LR SC 296 , it was observed that suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. 19. For the reason discussed above, we are unable to maintain the convictions of the appellants. They are entitled to acquittal. 20. In the result, the appeal of accused Shivkaran, Mangi Lal and Ramjeewan is allowed. Their convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 and 447, I.P.C. and set-aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. They are in custody and shall be forthwith set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******