JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal has been filed by the accused Balli @ Balveer against the judgment dated 13.9.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under section 302 IPC, whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer two months R.I. 2. There can be no dispute that the deceased Usman died as a result of multiple injuries and a bare look at the post mortem report (Ex.P.14) will show that there were as many as six stab wounds and one incised wound on vital parts of the body of the deceased and in the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died as a result of hemorrhage and shock due to injury No. 2 which was on the abdomen. The only question is as to whether or not on the evidence brought on record, it can be said that the accused appellant is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 6th July, 1988 at about 4 p.m. deceased Usman and the accused appellant along with PW-3 Lacchi were enjoying country liquor. There was some dispute and the accused appellant took out the knife and stabbed the deceased. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by the witness Lacchi (PW-3). The report of the incident was lodged by Mohammada (PW-2) in Police Station Sikri where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. The accused was arrested and on his information, the knife was recovered. 4. The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the evidence of PW-3 Lacchi as he is the solitary eye witness of the occurrence. A perusal of the statement of PW-3 Lacchi will show that it does not appear to us to be the witness of sterling worth. He admits that it does not appear to us to be the witness of sterling worth. He admits that he is-a police informer. It has been stated by him that Madan Singh, Constable had met him and had asked him that he should help in apprehending accused Balli. He said that he did not know Balli but promised to make an attempt to get him apprehended. After two days, the SHO Samaydeen Khan met him and he paid Rs. It has been stated by him that Madan Singh, Constable had met him and had asked him that he should help in apprehending accused Balli. He said that he did not know Balli but promised to make an attempt to get him apprehended. After two days, the SHO Samaydeen Khan met him and he paid Rs. 20/- to Lacchi to get the accused Balli apprehended and sent him to Village Chhutti Ka Bas. He went to the said village along with Jagan where they met the accused at his house and he asked the accused to help him in tracing his camel. He along with Jagan and the accused appellant and others left for Purken. There, all of them enjoyed liquor and then he returned to village and the accused was made to stay at the house of Jagan. In the evening, the accused ran away from the house of Jagan and he disclosed this to the S.H.O. next morning. He then went to the accused and asked him that he wanted to commit a robbery of a tractor and so he should accompany him on which the accused told that he had no ammunition with him and therefore will go tomorrow. He persuaded the accused to accompany him for some liquor and on the day of the incident, he went to the accused. The accused-appellant, Lacchi and Usman started for Purken. There, he (accused) and Usman again took liquor and Usman asked the accused to pay him an amount of Rs.70/- of his share and the accused promised to give it in the village. Then, there was exchange of hot words and in this process, the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased Usman. The accused also ran towards the witness Lacchi and also fired at him with a country made pistol but the fire missed. He ran for his life and met Raman and one more person. The accused ran away. It will be seen from this statement that his conduct is abnormal. He admits that he was not knowing the accused prior to the occurrence and as said earlier, also admits that he is an informer of the police. He does not even know Mohammada to whom he is said to have disclosed the incident and who lodged the report. It will be seen from this statement that his conduct is abnormal. He admits that he was not knowing the accused prior to the occurrence and as said earlier, also admits that he is an informer of the police. He does not even know Mohammada to whom he is said to have disclosed the incident and who lodged the report. Therefore, in view of his categorical statement that he did not know the accused appellant prior to the occurrence, his statement that the accused agreed to accompany him and consumed some liquor with him, does not appear to be correct. A look at the post mortem report of the deceased Usman will show that the stomach was found empty. So far as the small intestine is concerned, it was found filled with undigested food materials, the doctor did not find that there was any alcohol or any sings of alcohol in the stomach or contents thereof in the intestines. After having gone through the statement we are of the opinion that it will not be safe to rely on the statement of PW-3 Lacchi. It has come in the evidence of Battu (PW-4), who was declared hostile, that Lacchi (PW-3) did not see, in his presence, that the accused appellant had killed the deceased. It will be seen from the statement of PW-8 Sabu Khan that no sooner he had come out of his house, he heard Lacchi crying that he be saved and further that Balli Bhangi had killed a person. It has also been stated by him that he saw one person running away but when he asked Lacchi that the person who was running away should be chased and apprehended, Lacchi stopped him and said that he was' armed with a Katta (pistol). He stated that he did not identify the person who was running away and he was not known to him. 5. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the accused appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused appellant deserves to be extended the said benefit. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the trial court dated 13.9.1990 is set aside. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused appellant deserves to be extended the said benefit. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the trial court dated 13.9.1990 is set aside. Conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under section 302 IPC are set aside. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******