JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg under its judgment dated 7th June, 1990 convicted the accused-appellant Kamal Singh @ Komal Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3/24 of the Arras Act and for the first count the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and under the second count the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case are contained in detail is the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, but suffice to say that the accused is said to have intentionally caused the death of one Bachhu and as per the case of the prosecution it was in the intervening night of 29-30th July, 1988 at about 2.30- 2.45 a.m. that the accused entered the house of Bachhu, armed with a country made pistol, fired at him and caused his death. On hearing the notice of the gunshot fire Ram Kishan PW 1 and other neighbours were attracted and it was noticed that Bachhu was lying in a pool of blood and his wife Smt. Rugna PW 4 with her female child and her son Devi Lal PW 5 were there. She was not in a fit state of mind. Ram Kishan lodged the FIR in Police Station, Deeg, District Bharatpur, wherein it was not stated as to who had caused the injury to the deceased Bachhu. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion and during the investigation of the case site was inspected and usual investigation was conducted. An empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. The accused was arrested and after his arrest he gave information Ex.P.16 to the SHO that he should get the country made pistol 12 bore and a cartridge recovered and consequent to his information a country made pistol and cartridge were recovered from his possession. An empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. The accused was arrested and after his arrest he gave information Ex.P.16 to the SHO that he should get the country made pistol 12 bore and a cartridge recovered and consequent to his information a country made pistol and cartridge were recovered from his possession. They were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report dated 28.2.1990 though found that the country made 12 bore pistol Was in serviceable condition from Stereo and (Illegible) Microscopic examination of 12 bore Metallic Head (Illegible) Plastic Tube (C/1 and C/2) with test cartridge and found that it has not been possible to link definitely one 12 bore cartridge case (C/1 & C/2) with submitted 12 bore Country Made Pistol due to lack of sufficient evidence. He also said that wads and lead shots from packet E could have been fired from submitted 12 bore country made Pistol (W/1). He said that wads and lead shots from packet E are being forwarded to Serology Division for blood examination. 3. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tied and he learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. So far as the evidence that Smt. Rugni PW 4 wife of the deceased Bachhu, PW 4 Devi Lal child aged about 8 years had seen the occurrence has been relied upon, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly placed reliance on their evidence. The reasons are more than one. The first reason is that Ram Kishan lodged the FIR after he had come to the spot, but none disclosed including Rugni PW 4 that accused-appellant and Prabhu were running from the place where her husband was lying in a pool of blood with injuries. That apart Smt. Rugni in her statement recorded in the Court said that she has seen the accused-appellant running away from the place where her husband was lying. In her statement in the police she has said that it was given out by others that the accused-appellant and Prabhu have killed her husband. That apart Smt. Rugni in her statement recorded in the Court said that she has seen the accused-appellant running away from the place where her husband was lying. In her statement in the police she has said that it was given out by others that the accused-appellant and Prabhu have killed her husband. From her statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and recorded in the Court it can be said that in her statement in the Court she had said that she had seen accused-appellant and Prabhu running away from the place where her husband was lying dead in the night intervening 29-30th July, 1980, is not correct. Same is said in the statement of Devi Lal PW 5. He is a child witness aged about eight years. He is said to be sleeping with his father Bachhu. It is said that Bachhu died as a result of gun-shot injury. Devi Lal PW 5 had not said in his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that he has seen the accused and Prabhu running away from the place of occurrence either armed or unarmed. Therefore, it can be said that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. There is no circumstantial evidence in so far as it cannot be believed from the evidence on record as said above that the accused-appellant was seen running away from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence in the night intervening 29-30th July 1988. This piece of evidence, therefore, has not been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The case of the prosecution is that Kamal @ Komal had illicit relations with one Sabu and a few days prior to the occurrence Bachhu had taken objection to it and Kamal had quarrelled with Bachhu and also threatened that he will put his life end. The prosecution examined PW 10 Sugan. Sugan had stated that about a year and 2-1-2 months ago in the market 'Sabji Mandi' he was passing through Mela Ground and when he was passing through the Khatiks, Bachhu and Kamal were (Illegible) each other and Bachhu told Kamal Singh that he had eloped with the wife of his maternal uncle and he will see that Kamal Singh is sent to Jail. It was also said by Bachhu that Sabu had about Rs. 10,000/- worth ornaments with her. It was also said by Bachhu that Sabu had about Rs. 10,000/- worth ornaments with her. Kamal Singh had told to Bachhu that he should run away or else he will kill him. He is unable to tell the date or the thithi when said talks are said to have taken place. He is unable to say month and date of the said talks, and according to him at that time Bachhu was alone and was not accompanied by anybody. He also stated that as a result of their quarrel though it is a thorough-fare, but none was attracted. He also admits that he was interrogated by the police after 10-11 days of the death of Bachhu. He was confronted with the police statement Ex.D-2 wherein he has stated that at that time his wife was also present. He stated that when he heard about the death of Bachhu, he did not come to the Police Station to inform about this incident. PW 7 Somoti is mother of Bachhu. She only says that she had heard about the same quarrel in between the accused-appellant and Bachhu in connection with Sabu. 6. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the said incident took place about 10-12 days prior to the death of Bachhu, we are of the opinion that it is not such a motive which could have instigated the accused to cause the death of deceased. 7. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal set aside the judgment dated 7th June, 1990 of the learned Trial Court. We acquit the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and 3/24 of the Arms Act. The accused is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******