JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-4-87, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302,323,342, 392 and 397, I. P.C. 2. Appellant Devi Lal was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur) for the offences under Sections 302,307,342,392 and 397 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Gopi Ram - the servant of Bahai Singh, making an attempt on the life of Bahai Singh and committing the robbery of Rs. 3000/- and three wrist watches from the house of Bahai Singh in Villager-P.S. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged by Bahai Singh, is that he is living in village 1 -P.S. whereas his other relatives are residing in Punjab on 14-6-84, at about 2.00 p.m., i.e., a day earlier to the incident, he was sleeping in his house. One clean-shaved person wearing black-colour pant and almond-colour bushtit, came on a bicycle and asked him that his land has come under the flood-canal and, therefore, he is in DM/LM/R161 /95/AM G search of some other land. Sometime thereafter his servant Gopi Ram and Pyare Singh Sunar came from the field and Dharam Singh and Radha Kishan, also, came there. He introduced that man with these persons and enquired from them whether any land is saleable as that person wanted to purchase some land. Sukhdeo Singh came there on a bicycle who took out his address and gave his address to that man. Sukhdeo Singh disclosed to him that he and his brother want to sell the land. That man went with Sukhdeo Singh on the bicycle towards the Dhani of Sukhdeo Singh. Yesterday, at about 9.00 p.m. when he and his servant Gopi Ram were sleeping in the house, that man came there; he opened the door and the man sat with him and told that he had seen the land at 49-R. B. but that land does not suits him and he wants to purchase the land in his village. He thereafter gave that man a cot which was placed between his cot and the cot of Gopi Ram. He took the meals and thereafter all of them slept. He thereafter gave that man a cot which was placed between his cot and the cot of Gopi Ram. He took the meals and thereafter all of them slept. At about mid night, he heard the cries of Gopi Ram and saw that that man was killing Gopi Ram with a knife by inflicting injury on the neck of Gopi Ram. When he enquired the accused why he was killing Gopi Ram, he put a turban on his mouth and inflicted injury by fists-blows and knee on his chest and, also, tried to throttle him and asked him to give the keys of the safe. He handed-over the keys of the safe to that man. Thereafter he took him to the room and took out Rs. 3000/- lying in the safe and also, took away two old wrist watches lying in the safe and also took away the wrist watch from his wrist. The accused, also, enquired about the gold but he disclosed that he did not have any gold with him. The accused put handkerchief on his mouth, closed him in a room and went away after putting lock on the door. In the morning, at about 5.00 a.m., he raised alarm which attracted Amra Ram, who, thereafter called Veer Singh, Lakha Singh Dharam Singh and Bher Singh. During the investigation, the investigating officer came to know that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and, therefore, he arrested him and after investigation presented the challan against the accused. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 342, 392 and 3971. P.C. He therefore, convicted the accused for the offences, but, however, the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of Bahai Singh. The learned trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.' one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. The learned trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.' one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 342,1. P.C.; five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 392, I.P.C.; and four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 397, I.P.C. It is against this judgment dated 20-4-87, passed by the trial Court, that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Bahai Singh the informant was the eye witness to the occurrence, who breathed his last during the trial and, therefore, his statement could not be recorded. The case of the prosecution, therefore, now, rests upon the circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances, which have been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court, consist of: (i) the accused, on 12-6-84, came to the house of Bahai Singh and showed his desire to purchase the land in village 1 -P.S. and at that time he was seen by the witnesses. viz., PW 1 Dharam Singh, PW 3 Pyara Singh. PW 4 Veer Singh and PW 6 Sukhdeo Singh: (ii) the accused went with PW 6 Sukhdeo Singh to see the land and to have a talk with him regarding the purchase of the land; (iii) the accused returned to the house of Bahai Singh on 13-6-84 and slept in his house along with the deceased and in the morning he was not found in the house of Bahai Singh; and (iv) the recovery of the blood-stained knife - the weapon of offence on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant and the knife was found stained with human blood. 4. 4. Now, it has to be seen : whether tho circumstances believed by the learned trial Court stand fully established or not and whether these circumstances complete the chain and taken cumulatively, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and whether these circumstances are so impelling which lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who caused the death of deceased Gopi Ram ? 5. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is coming of the accused on 12-6-84 in village 1-P.S. in connection with purchase of land because his own land came under the flood-canal. The prosecution, in this respect, has placed reliance over the statements of PW 1 Dharam Singh, PW 3 Pyara Singh and PW 6 Sukhdeo Singh. PW 1 Dharam Singh has stated that V/2 years before, at about 2.00/ 2.30 p.m., he was taking rest in the room of Bahai Singh. Gopi Ram called him that Bahai Singh requires him. When he went to the Nohra of Bahai Singh, Bahai Singh, Birbal Ram, Sukhdeo Singh and Pyara Singh along with five-six other persons, were sitting there. One outsider was, also, sitting there, whose name was disclosed as Devi Lal. Bahai Singh informed him that this man wants to purchase some land because his land, which he was holding, has come under the dam and asked him whether there is some person who wants to sell the land. He informed Bahai Singh that Sukhdeo Singh wants to sell half square of his land. Thereafter accused went with Sukhdeo Singh on bicycle. Next day, the accused came to the house of Bahai Singh and after taking meals, slept there. On the next day, at about 6.00 a.m., Bahai Singh raised cries from the room. He, along with Amar Singh, Veer Singh, Lakh Singh and some other villagers went there and after taking out the iron rods from the window, took Bahai Singh out from the room. Bahai Singh had injuries on his person and informed that the man, who had come to purchase the land, had given him beatings so he should see what had happened to Gopi Ram. On search, the dead body of Gopi Ram was found in the room where fodder used to be kept. Bahai Singh had injuries on his person and informed that the man, who had come to purchase the land, had given him beatings so he should see what had happened to Gopi Ram. On search, the dead body of Gopi Ram was found in the room where fodder used to be kept. He, also, informed him that at the time when the accused gave beatings to him, he was, also, enquiring about the place where the gold was lying and had taken away two/three wrist watches and the cash of Rs. 3000/- and closed him in the room. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that in his presence Sukhdeo Singh gave his address to accused Devi Lal and Devi Lal, also, gave his address to Sukhdeo Singh and after exchanging the addresses by them, he went to his house and saw the accused and Sukhdeo Singh going on bicycle{s). This witness has admitted that he had not met the accused earlier to that day and the identification of the accused was made by him at the Police Station and at that time no other person was present there and the police called him for identification after 2'A to 3 months. This witness was not present at the house of Bahai Singh on the next day when the accused returned there. He had, also, not seen Gopi and Bahai Singh serving food to the accused. No identification of the accused was got done by this witness before but he identified the accused in the Court though in fact the identification parade was held by PW 14 Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, and during the identification parade, only two persons, viz., Bahai Singh and Pyara Singh were produced who got the accused identified. The identification of the accused by this witness in the Court, there fore, does not give any assistance because no test identification parade was held earlier. Moreover, as per this witness the accused and Sukhdeo Singh exchanged their addresses but in the F.I.R. the name of the accused does not find mention though Sukhdeo Singh was present in the morning when Bahal Singh was rescued from the room. When the name and the address of the accused was known to this witness, his name should have been disclosed at the time of lodging the report. When the name and the address of the accused was known to this witness, his name should have been disclosed at the time of lodging the report. Even from the evidence of this witness, it has not been disclosed that the murder of Gopi Ram was committed by the accused-appellant. The identification of the accused by this witness, therefore, does not inspire confidence and the evidence of this witness is of no assistance to the prosecution.PW3 Pyara Singh is the other witness who was present when the accused came on 12-6-84 and talked with Bahal Singh regarding purchase of the land on the ground that his own land had come under the flood canal. Bahal Singh made enquiry from other persons regarding availability of the land and at that time Lakha Singh, Amra Ram, Mohan Singh and other persons were present there and the accused was sitting with Baba Bahal Singh. At about 2.30 p.m., the accused went with Sukhdeo Singh on bicycle as Sukhdeo Singh informed him that he wants to sell his land.Both went on separate bicycles. One day after, Amra Ram Gunsai informed him that the servant of Baba Bahal Singh has been murdered and when in the morning he saw Bahal Singh locked in a room and he was rescued, Bahal Singh informed him that that man, who had come to purchase the land, gave beatings to him and detained him in the room and took away the wrist watches and a time-piece and the cash of Rs. 3000/- from the safe. He did not see anything more in the room and saw one cot which was stained with blood and one dead body was found in the room where the fodder was kept. Thereafter the police came. This witness has seen the accused leaving the house of Bahal Singh at about 2.30 p.m. and thereafter he had not seen the accused coming back to the house of Bahal Singh. This witness has, also, identified the accused during identification parade. This witness has admitted that prior to the identification parade, the photographs of the accused were shown to him. When the photographs of the accused were shown to this witness earlier then the identification of the accused by this witness lose its significance. This witness has, also, identified the accused during identification parade. This witness has admitted that prior to the identification parade, the photographs of the accused were shown to him. When the photographs of the accused were shown to this witness earlier then the identification of the accused by this witness lose its significance. The evidence of this witness regarding identification of the accused by him, therefore, does not help the prosecution.PW 6 Sukhdeo Singh has stated that the accused wanted to purchase some land and he saw him in the house of Bahal Singh where the accused, Bahal Singh and three-four other persons were sitting there. Bahal Singh informed him that the accused wanted to purchase the land but no talk with this witness regarding the sale of land took place and thereafter he, along with the accused, went to the Dhani and showed the land to the accused but the deal could not be finalised as the accused wanted to take more land than what he was ready to sell. No test identification parade of the accused was made from this witness though the identification parade was held. He identified the accused only in the Court. The accused was all alone and was shown to this witness earlier, also, as has been admitted by this witness. The photographs of the accused were with the investigating officer and, therefore, the identification of the accused by this witness, also, does not inspire confidence and does not connect the accused with the crime. Moreover, this witness had not seen the accused on the previous day.The case of the prosecution falls on the ground if we look into the statement of PW 4 Veer Singh, who has stated that in the morning, at about V/2 years before, he heard the cries of Amra Ram. He went there and Bahal Singh was rescued by Amra Ram and other persons. Bahal Singh had injuries on his person. He informed him that one unknown person came in the night, gave him beatings and took away Rs. 3000/- and two wrist watches from the safe and one wrist watch from his wrist. Bahal Singh informed him that the man, who did all this, was not seen by him earlier and he had seen him only on that day. He informed him that one unknown person came in the night, gave him beatings and took away Rs. 3000/- and two wrist watches from the safe and one wrist watch from his wrist. Bahal Singh informed him that the man, who did all this, was not seen by him earlier and he had seen him only on that day. In view of the statement of this witness it is clear that it was not the accused who came to the house of Bahal Singh in the night but it was some other person.PW 10 Gurudarshan Singh is a teacher posted in the village, who has been produced by the prosecution to show that he saw the accused going on a bicycle towards village 1-P.S. at about 7.00/7.30 a.m. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had not seen the accused earlier to that day and saw him when he was taking him in his house and the accused was going on a bicycle. It appears somewhat difficult that a man will remember the identity of an accused going towards a particular place merely by seeing him for the first time, particularly in the circumstance when he was not known to him. Such type of evidence can be procured at any time and no reliance can be placed upon such type of evidence. Moreover, this evidence does not connect the accused with the crime in anyway. The evidence of this witness, on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution, therefore, does not inspire confidence and it cannot be said with certainty that it was the accused who came to Bahal Singh's house for purchasing the land. It has been admitted by PW 9 Gurjant Singh - the investigating officer - that Bahal Singh, in his statement Ex. D. 1, disclosed the name of the accused as Mahendra Singh. No investigation was conducted by the investigating officer to find-out whether that Mahendra Singh was involved in the commission of the crime or not? The investigation proceeded against the accused-appellant only. The mentioning of the name of the accused by Bahal Singh and the nondisclosure of the name of the accused in the F.I.R., raises a suspicion in the prosecution case and the evidence produced by the prosecution on this point, does not inspire confidence. 6. The investigation proceeded against the accused-appellant only. The mentioning of the name of the accused by Bahal Singh and the nondisclosure of the name of the accused in the F.I.R., raises a suspicion in the prosecution case and the evidence produced by the prosecution on this point, does not inspire confidence. 6. The next circumstance relied upon by tho prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of the knife - the weapon of offence-on the information and at the instance of the accused. The recovery of the knife was made from an open place accessible to all. Moreover, it cannot be said with certainty that the injuries found on the person of Gopi Ram can be caused by the knife. PW 8 Dr. Satish Kumar Gupta has specifically stated that the injuries found on the person of Gopi Ram could be caused by a sharp weapon which should be sharp by both the sides (double-edged weapon) and having one inch's width, as the injuries were clear-cut injuries. The knife Article 7, recovered in the present case on the information and at the instance of the accused, was sharp only on one side and the other side is blunt and, therefore, these injuries could not have been caused by this knife. PW 8 Dr. Gupta has not stated in his statement that these injuries could be caused by the knife recovered in this case. The Jearned trial Court, though noted this fact, discarded the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused on the ground that the accused had not proved by cogent evidence that the injuries could not be caused by this knife. It was the duty of the prosecution to establish its case and to prove that the weapon of offence recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused, could cause these injuries. Moreover, no human blood was found on the knife during F.S.L. examination as the blood on it was disintegrated. In the absence of positive evidence that the blood found on the knife was that of the deceased, this knife does not connect the accused with the crime. 7. There is one more infirmity in the prosecution case. The prosecution has admitted that naked foot-prints were found near the cot. PW 12 Mahaveer Prasad - the investigating officer - has clearly stated that vide Ex. 7. There is one more infirmity in the prosecution case. The prosecution has admitted that naked foot-prints were found near the cot. PW 12 Mahaveer Prasad - the investigating officer - has clearly stated that vide Ex. P. 16 he took the moulds of two foot-prints in the presence of Gurubachan Singh. PW 13 Dungar Singh, who took-over the investigation from PW 12 Mahaveer Prasad, moved an application Ex. P.19 before the learned Magistrate for taking the foot-prints of the accused and on 29-11-84, the learned Magistrate, viz., Mr. Bhagwan Singh, took the moulds of the footprints vide Ex. P.29. Though the moulds of the foot prints were taken but the report has not been produced, which, also, raises a,suspicion in the prosecution case and an adverse inference can be drawn that if the report would have been produced it would not have supported the prosecution case. If the report of the foot-prints would have been produced it would have clinched the issue and the presence of the accused, if would have been shown from the report, could be a circumstance which could be read against' the accused. In the absence of such evidence or any other evidence connecting the accused with the crime, the conviction of the accused cannot sustain. 8. There is no evidence connecting the accused-appellant with the crime and the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by accused-appellant Devi Lal is allowed. The judgment dated 20-4-87, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant of the aforesaid offences, set-aside and the accused-appellant acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released for forthwith not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******