JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 31, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Reference No. 2 of 1994 and Criminal Appeal No. 170 DB of 1994 arising out of the judgment and order dated February 17, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1994 (115/92). It appears that the appellants along with one Super @ Har Swarup were charged for tripple murder. During the trial, Super @ Har Swarup had died and the appellants were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the said Sessions Trial No. 9/94. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on April 18, 1989 at about 2.00 P.M. in village Ghirai in the District Hissar, the said deceased accused and the appellants murdered Ram Kali, her husband Budh Ram and the sister of Ram Kali, Rajar in the house which belonged to the maternal grand father of the deceased Ram Kali, namely, Ujala. The prosecution case is that the son of the deceased Ram Kali and Budh Ram were present at the place of occurrence, but he managed to slip away from the notice of the assailants and keeping himself hidden, he could notice the commission of murder of all the three persons. It is the prosecution case that the accused assaulted all the three deceased with gandasa and Jallia. Rajar, the sister of Ram Kali died on the spot, but Ram Kali and Budh Ram were still alive, but they were done to death by strangulating them with the aid of a rope. After killing the said three persons, their bodies were taken by a Rehru to a field where cowdungs were placed upon their bodies and the bodies were put under fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. 3. It appears that getting the information about the said three persons, the Village Serpanch Bhag Singh lodged an F.I.R. to the Police Station at about 7.15 A.M. and the report of such F.I.R. was immediately sent to the Ilaka Magistrate. The only eye-witness in this case is the said child aged about 6 years and the said child PW.6 was initially taken to the Police Station by his maternal grand father but his statement was not then recorded by the police. The only eye-witness in this case is the said child aged about 6 years and the said child PW.6 was initially taken to the Police Station by his maternal grand father but his statement was not then recorded by the police. The said child was later on taken before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Hissar on April 20, 1989, and after talking to the child the said Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar for taking personal care in the said case of triple murder. The child witness PW, 6 was thereafter taken to the police station on April 21, 1989 and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Next day, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate. It may be stated that Bhag Singh has not been examined in this case and although from the note of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, it transpires from the letter of District Magistrate that Jatbir stated to be the maternal grand father of the said child witness Satish P.W.6, was also an eye- witness of the said incident, the said Satbir was not examined in this case although it was noted in the letter of the District Magistrate that he would depose in Court, 4. Relying on the evidence of PW. 6, Satish, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Section 302 read with 149, and Sections 148 and 201 I.P.C. for murdering Ram Kali, Budh Ram and Rajar. Considering the gravity of the offences committed by the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge awarded the sentence of death to each of the appellants. 5. Out of such conviction and sentence, Murder Reference No. 2/94 came before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellants also preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Such appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 170-DB of 1994. Both the said Murder Reference No. 2/94 and Appeal No. 170-DB of 1994 were heard analogously and by a common judgment, both the said appeal and the murder reference were disposed of by the High Court. 6. The High Court has upheld the conviction passed against the appellants and also affirmed the death sentence passed against Baldev, Bharat Singh @ Bhatta and Satwan. 6. The High Court has upheld the conviction passed against the appellants and also affirmed the death sentence passed against Baldev, Bharat Singh @ Bhatta and Satwan. But considering the young age of the appellant, Iswar, the death sentence passed against him was commuted to life imprisonment. It is against the said decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 7. It has been contended before us by Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the facts relating to the incident as stated in the F.I.R. is different from the depositions made by the said eye-witness Satish (P.W.6). He has also submitted that in the instant case, the investigation had not been made properly and the same was tainted with bias causing serious prejudice to the accused. The courts below also expressed dissatisfaction about the manner in which the investigation had been carried out in this case. Mr. Jain has submitted that if the investigation is tainted thereby causing prejudice to the accused benefit of doubt should be given to the accused because fair investigation is part of the guarantee to the right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Mr. Jain has also submitted that although recoveries of the weapons with which the murder was alleged to have been committed were believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the High Court has not placed any reliance on such recoveries. He has submitted that on ultimate analysis, it is only on the basis of the sole and uncorroborated evidence of the said child-witness, P.W.6, the conviction has been passed against all the appellants. 8. Mr. Jain has submitted that there is serious and material contradiction in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the depositions given by P.w.6. Mr.Jain has drawn our attention to the fact that although it was stated by the said PW.6 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that only his father was hanged by one of the accused, in his deposition he has stated that both his parents were strangulated and such contradiction about such an important fact in the deposition only demonstrates that the said witness had not seen the occurrence but he was tutored at a later stage by the said Satbir with whom he admittedly stayed all the time. Mr. Mr. Jain has also submitted that it has been deposed by the said PW. 6. Satish that about 50 persons had witnessed the said incident of murder and he had taken shelter behind the said persons and noticed the incident, but none of such persons has been examined by the prosecution in this case and it also appears that no one had been even interrogated by the police during the investigation of the case. Mr. Jain has drawn our attention to the deposition of the said witness PW. 6 that he had seen the accused, for the first time, on the date of the incident. Mr. Jain .has submitted that if the said child aged about only six years had seen the accused for the first time only on the date of the incident, it was not possible for him to name the accused in his statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. or before the Deputy Commissioner before whom he was taken by the said Satbir. Mr. Jain has, therefore, submitted that it is quite likely that the said Satbir had tutored him and given the names of the accused and the said witness on such tutoring, gave out the names of the accused. Mr. jain has also submitted that it has come out in the evidence that the said Satbir had enmity with the accused, particularly with the deceased accused Har Swarup in connection with the possession of the land belonging to the said Ujala and it is not unlikely that because of the said enmity he wanted to rope in the accused in the said murder case and had given the names of the accused to the said child-witness who had repeated the said names without knowing them. Mr. Jain has submitted that false implication of the accused in the said murder case is quite apparent. Hence, the appellants should be acquitted by allowing this appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the State, Shri Vohra, has, however, drawn our attention to the deposition of the said PW. 6 at page 126 of Volume II of the Paper Books of this appeal. It appears that the said witness has stated: "I used to go village Ghirai with my father prior to this occurrence also. When my mother was alive, then I used to go with her. 6 at page 126 of Volume II of the Paper Books of this appeal. It appears that the said witness has stated: "I used to go village Ghirai with my father prior to this occurrence also. When my mother was alive, then I used to go with her. I cannot say when did I go to the village before that." 10. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the said witness had therefore occasion to know the accused. It, however, appears that immediately thereafter the said witness has also stated in his deposition "I did not go to the village before the occurrence at any time." 11. Mr. Vohra has also drawn our attention to the statement of the said witnesses where he has deposed that 'I know the accused persons since before the occurrence," but later on the said witness has stated "I had seen all the accused for the first time on the day of occurrence." 12. We have taken care to check the Hindi version of the depositions recorded in this case and it appears that the statements as indicated hereinbefore had been made by the said witness. To say the least, the depositions of the said witness are not only contradictory but also incompatible. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of this child witness more so when the case of tutoring this child witness by Satbir as suggested by the accused cannot be ruled out. 13. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the case against the appellants has been established beyond reasonable doubt for which they can be convicted for the offence of murder. It is really unfortunate that three persons were brutally murdered but for want of proper investigation and for want of convincing evidence case could not be established in the Court of law. In the facts of the case, the appellants cannot be convicted. We are, therefore, constrained to allow this appeal by setting aside the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants. They should be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.