(1) THROUGH this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Court) Act, 1984, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge of the Special court, Ferozepur on 7/12/1984. (2) THE prosecution case in brief is that at about 11.15 p.m. on 25/06/1984 while MangatRam deceased was sleeping on the roof of his house someone scaled over the wall and after coming to the roof fired a shot at the deceased. The wife of the deceased Kanta Rani PW3, who was sleeping on a separate cot woke up on hearing the shot. She found a person with muffled face standing on the roof with a revolver in his hand. RajenderKumarpw 4son of the deceased and Saroj Bala daughter of the deceased, who were also sleeping on separate cots on the roof also woke up on hearing the firing of the shot and raised noise, whereupon the assailant fled away. Mangat Ram died on the spot. Leaving Rajender Kumar pw 4 and Sarojbala to guard the dead body Kanta Rani PW3 went to the police station to lodge the First Information Raport at about 1 1.45 p.m. In that report Kanta Rani PW3 disclosed about occurrence and stated that her husband had been murdered by some mischievous person. The investigation was taken in hand and after completion ofthe investigation the appellant was challaned and sent up for trial for offences under S. 302 and 449 Indian Penal Code. (3) AT the trial the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW3 Kanta Rani and pw 4 Ranjender Kumar besides Amarjeet Singh PW6. the model witness and the investigating officer, to connect the appellant with the crime. (4) THAT the deceased died as a result of gun shot firing is not in dispute and stands established from the evidence of Dr. Narender Mohan Bhalla PW1 who had performed the post-mortem examination, The only question before us is whether it was the appellant who had committed the crime. (5) KANTA Rani PW3 admitted at the trial that the person who had fired from the pistol at her husband had muffled his face. She, however, went on to add that the assailant had been seen while going down the stairs by her son Rajender Kumar and daughter Saroj Bala. (5) KANTA Rani PW3 admitted at the trial that the person who had fired from the pistol at her husband had muffled his face. She, however, went on to add that the assailant had been seen while going down the stairs by her son Rajender Kumar and daughter Saroj Bala. This part of her statement was an improvement because in the FIR she had not stated that her son and daughter had seen the assailant while going down the stairs. Rajender Kumar pw 4 also improved upon his version and stated at the trial that to though the face of the appellant was originally muffled, it had become naked when he was going down the stairs and he had identified the assailant as Mangal Singh the appellant. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not stated to the police that the face of the appellant had become naked while he was going down the stairs or had reached the courtyard. Had pw 4 identified the assailant, there is no reason why he would not have disclosed his name to his mother PW3 when she went to lodge the FIR. The absence of the name of the assailant in the FIR coupled with the statement in the FIR that some mischievous person had fired upon the deceased, creates a serious doubt about the identity of the assailant. The witness PW3 and pw 4 have made deliberate improvements at the trial which have detracted materially from the evidentiary value of their statements. In the FIR the only description of the assailant which was given by PW3 was that he had his face muffled and was wearing a blue turban. The Investigating Officer PW7 did not take the court into confidence to disclose on what basis he arrested the appellant and who disclosed to him that it was the appellant who was the assailant. (6) THE prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of Amarjeet Singh PW6. It is the prosecution case that the appellant had made an extra judicial confession to Amarjeet Singh PW6 admitting that he had committed the murder of the deceased and had requested Amarjeet Singh to produce before the police. Amarjeet Singh PW6 however, did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. During the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he denied that the appellant had made any confession before him. Amarjeet Singh PW6 however, did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. During the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he denied that the appellant had made any confession before him. Bal Kishan ASI, PW7, the Investigating Officer, stated at the trial that the place where the accused was apprehended was inhabited locality. The accused was arrested while coming out of the house of Amarjeet Singh. This statement would show that the appellant had not been produced by Amarjeet Singh, PW6. The prosecution case, therefore, stands belied to that extent also. (7) THE revolver allegedly recovered from the appellant was not subjected to an examination by any expert and there is no material on the record from which the said revolver can be connected with the commission of the crime in the instant case. (8) THE evidence on the record in our opinion does not satisfactorily establish the identity of the appellant as the assailant who committed the murder of deceased Mangat Ram. The prosecution has failed to establish the rase against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned trial court appears to have ignored the serious infirmities in the prosecution case and erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of wholly insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence. The judgment of the trial court cannot thus be sustained. (9) THIS appeal is accordingly accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.