JUDGMENT 1. - The accused Shyama @ (alias) Shyam Sunder has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer by his judgment dated 18.9.1991 for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200. Against this conviction and sentence he has preferred a Jail appeal and Shri Azad Ahmed has been appointed as amicus curiae to plead his case and assist the court. 2. An incident took place on 19.5.1988 at about 11.00 p.m. at Marwar Junction Railway Station about which a first information report was lodged by P.W. 8 Ram Swaroop Meena. The report Ex. P/8 says that on the relevant date at about 9.00 p.m. he (Ramswaroop) had come from Ajmer to Marwar Junction for purposes of going to Abu Road Junction. His nephew Santosh son of Prasadi Lal Meena lived at Marwar Junction and he stopped there to meet him. He went to the house of Santosh but he was not there so he came to the Railway Station and met Abdul son of Jumankhan. Both of them went together in search of Santosh. At that lime they heard some shouts from the roof above the Platform and on going there they saw accused appellant giving knife blows to Santosh. They reached the roof from the Overbridge and Shyama ran away after threatening them. The accused ran away after leaving behind his loongi, shirt, shoes and once acid bottle. The informant gave out the story to GRP Constable Bal Singh and then went to the office of ASM who called the ADMO by telephoning him. Santosh was taken on a stretcher to the Platform where he was declared dead by the ADMO. Santosh had some knife injuries and even some burns by acid. Abdul returned soon after from Market and informed that the accused appellant had committed another murder of Narain @ Kulhad, whose body was lying at the crossing. In the report it was also mentioned that five years ago Shyama and Santosh ahd a fight on the Railway Platform and on account of this enmity Santosh had been killed. 3. This report was lodged at the Railway Police Station Marwar Junction at 11.00 pm. 4. Upon this report a case was registered. In the report it was also mentioned that five years ago Shyama and Santosh ahd a fight on the Railway Platform and on account of this enmity Santosh had been killed. 3. This report was lodged at the Railway Police Station Marwar Junction at 11.00 pm. 4. Upon this report a case was registered. The accused appellant was arrested on 12.6.1988 and he gave information that he had purchased the knife from village Kalol and that he got it sharpened at Jodhpur. He could go and point out the shops at both the places. The police took him there and interrogated the persons pointed out by him. On information of the accused a bottle of acid was recovered from a nali on the roof of the Railway Platform at Marwar Junction. The bottle opener was recovered from a vendor at the railway station by which the accused had opened the acid bottle. 5. It may be stated that the deceased Santosh had a tea stall at the Railway Station Marwar Junction and the informant Ramswaroop was his maternal uncle. When Ramswaroop visited the house of deceased he found it locked, it was only natural for him to proceed to the Railway Station in search of Santosh. So far the story can be said to be probable but as pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae the story is inconsistent and unbelievable and at the same time there appears to be no logic. It is argued that P.W. 8 Ramswaroop is a postal employee posted at Ajmer and he was on duty on the relevant date, namely, on 19.5.1988 at Ajmer in the second shift. He says that he proceeded to Marwar Junction by first taking a car upto Sojat Road and from there he took a bus to Marwar Junction. He is unable to give out whose ear it was in which he travelled upto Sojat Road. It may be possible that a man coming all the way from Ajmer to Marwar Junction may be able to witness the crime, but then the purpose of his visit has to be specified and the manner in which he reached Marwar Junction should be explained by evidence which can be tested for purposes of corroboration. On reaching Marwar Junction Railway Station he contacted PW. 1 Abdul to find out as to where was Santosh. On reaching Marwar Junction Railway Station he contacted PW. 1 Abdul to find out as to where was Santosh. But P.W. 1 Abdul has stated that he was not knowing Ramswaroop from before. Ramswaroop had introduced himself as the uncle of Santosh and that is why he came to know him. P.W. 8 Ramswaroop has stated that he was knowing Abdul from before as he was a friend of Santosh's father. For P.W. 1 Abdul it has been contended that he is a stock witness of the police and the reason given out by him for being at the Marwar Junction Railway Station is that on the fateful day he had gone to see off some people who had come to condole on the death of his father. It is the case of the prosecution that soon after murdering Santosh accused went out of the Railway Station and killed one Narain @ Kulhad who was running a video Parlour. But Abdul after chasing the appellant for a short distance came out with the report that he (accused) had killed the videoman but no one tried to catch the accused or to find out as to how another murder had been committed. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that the knife by which Santosh is said to have been murdered has not been produced and there is no witness to say that the accused had thrown acid on the deceased Santosh. The Assistant Station Master only saw a person with a knife but he has not testified this person with a blood stained knife was the accused. He remained stilling in his office and informed the police. The learned Amicus Curiae has contended that there is no reason given out by the prosecution as to why the appellant committed two murders when there was no enmity beyond a slight exchange of words. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 Abdul and P.W. 8 Ramswaroop has not been shaken in the cross-examination and these witnesses have, not been discredited in any manner. It is contended that in all there are 13 stab wounds on Santosh. There was enough time and light for the witnesses to see as to who was the assailant. It is argued that when there are eyewitnesses to the incident then the motive becomes irrelevant. 8. It is contended that in all there are 13 stab wounds on Santosh. There was enough time and light for the witnesses to see as to who was the assailant. It is argued that when there are eyewitnesses to the incident then the motive becomes irrelevant. 8. We have gone through the evidence of the case and other material on record and considered the contentions of both the sides. There are only two eye-witnesses of the incident and we may look into their testimony. P.W. 1 Abdul stated that he works as a Waterman at the Marwar Junction Railway Station. Some guests had come to his house and he had gone to see them off at the Railway Station at about 10.00 or 10.15 p.m. There he met the maternal uncle of Santosh who asked him to accompany him and take him to the place where there is video show. According to him Ramswaroop was in a hurry as he wanted to catch the 3 Up train. Then he look Ramswaroop by the overbridge to the Videoman and when they were on the overbridge they heard shouts from the Cement shed and saw that Santosh was running and the appellant was chasing him and on seeing them the accused gave knife blows to Santosh and then ran away towards the market side. Then he heard some noises and learnt that the appellant had killed a Videoman also, who was known as Kulhad. He did not shout at that time and he did not make any attempt to catch the accused. This witness has admitted that he had never seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. The version of Ramswaroop has already come out in the first information report. According to him when he found the house of Santosh locked he came to Railway Station where he met Abdul and both of them went in search of Santosh. While they were going towards the video shop from the overbridge they heard some noises on the roof of the Platform and he saw Santosh lying there and the accused with a knife in one hand and bottle in another inflicting blows on Santosh. At that time the accused threatened that he would kill them and ran away. While they were going towards the video shop from the overbridge they heard some noises on the roof of the Platform and he saw Santosh lying there and the accused with a knife in one hand and bottle in another inflicting blows on Santosh. At that time the accused threatened that he would kill them and ran away. Abdul also followed him then Ramswaroop informed GRP Constable and then the Assistant Station Master and Medical Officer came there who declared Santosh dead. After that Abdul returned back and told that the accused had murdered one Narain @ (alias) Kulhad also. Loongi, shirt, chappal and a bottle of acid were lying on the roof of the Platform, which were pointed out to the SHO of the GRP Police Station. 9. Ramswaroop is admittedly a relation of Santosh and therefore an interested witness and P.W. 1 Abdul is a friend of the father of the deceased Santosh and also known to the deceased and Ramswaroop. Whether both the witnesses can be said to be interested witness ? It becomes necessary to examine them minutely so as to find out whether their testimony should be accepted or not. P.W. 1 Abdul has stated that Santosh and the appellant were running 'on the Platform roof and the accused was chasing him while P.W. 8 Ramswaroop has stated that Santosh was lying on the roof and the appellant was inflicting knife blows by one hand and he had a bottle in his other hand. P.W. 1. Abdul has not deposed anything about the bottle. From where a loongi, shirt came on the roof of the Platform has also not been explained. The recovery of acid bottle and bottle cap at the instance of the accused from a Nali on the Platform roof has been said to be proved by the prosecution but how and when the accused managed to keep these things has not been explained. From the evidence the appellant immediately ran away from the scene of the incident then how could be conceal those things at that place. From the evidence the appellant immediately ran away from the scene of the incident then how could be conceal those things at that place. Strange thing can happen in this world and for the sake of argument it may be accepted that P.W. 8 Ramswaroop came all the way from Ajmer and was able to witness the murder of his nephew, but then he ought to have satisfactorily explained the manner in which he performed the journey from Ajmer to Marwar Junction. He is unable to give out the name of the person in whose car he travelled upto Sojat Road. He has also not explained the purpose of his visit. Conviction can be based on the testimony of the interested witnesses or even a solitary witness but then his testimony has to be of sterling worth in order to base a conviction upon it. Here there are two interested witnesses who have not supported each other in details and further corroborative evidence which could have been obtained has not come on record. Here it may also be mentioned that the witnesses of the murder of Narain @ Kulhad could also be relevant witnesses if they had seen the accused coming with a blood stained knife in his hand but the evidence of the other murder has not been produced in this case. It appears that the trial of the accused for the murder of Narain has taken place separately and the details of the same have not been given out here. However some evidence if only to connect that this accused had committed a murder before committing the murder of Narain could have been produced to show that it was this accused who murdered Santosh. Both the alleged eye witnesses cannot be said to be of trust worthy. The weapon of the offence is missing. When the accused gave information about the place from where he purchased the knife and the place where he got it sharpened it cannot be information in order to get it recovered. Marwar Junction Railway station is a busy place and some independent witness could also be found, but no independent witness has come forward. The recovery of bottle cap is also a recovery from open place where every' one had access and it could not be attributed to the appellant. 10. Marwar Junction Railway station is a busy place and some independent witness could also be found, but no independent witness has come forward. The recovery of bottle cap is also a recovery from open place where every' one had access and it could not be attributed to the appellant. 10. On the whole we are not satisfied that the evidence produced in the case can be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Hence this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released if not wanted in any other case. *******