JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hamumangarh in Case No. 37/87 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under section 302, Indian Procedure Code and under section 27, Arms Act. He has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default, further two months' imprisonment and three years' imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 100/- and, in default, further one month's imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is as follows : PW 3 Gurjant Singh who is resident of Village Keekar Chak, P.S., Sadul Shahar, lodged Ex. P/5 written report with PW 2 Bhan Singh, H.C., Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, Lalgarh on 6.12.1986 at 7.30 a.m. alleging that since his brother's daughter Jasvinder Kaur was admitted in the hospital at Sri Ganganagar, he had gone to Sri Ganganagar in the evening 5.12.1986. He had left Manohar Singh, his nephew, to keep a watch over the 'Narma' (cotton) collected in the form of stack and kept in his field. He had instructed PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh to fetch Narma from his field to his house. At about 11 p.m. in the night intervening 5th and 6th December, 1986, PW 4 Bhola Singh came to him at Sri Ganganagar Hospital and told him that he, along with PW 5 Tara Singh, went to his field with a tractor-trolley at about 8.30 p.m. to collect Narma and, on reaching near the stack of Narma, they saw that Manohar Singh was sleeping on the stack of Narma and the accused fired at Manohar Singh. They challenged the accused on which the accused threw the gun on the spot and fled away. They got down from the tractor and found that Manohar Singh was bleeding from left side of his head who succumbed to his head injury after a little while. On this information, PW 3 Gurjant Singh, accompanied by PW 4 Bhola Singh, returned to the village and took Harbans Singh, Jagroop Singh Sarpanch, Gurcharan Singh etc. along with him to the field whereat Manohar Singh was lying dead. A 12 bore double barreled gun was lying by his side. On this information, PW 3 Gurjant Singh, accompanied by PW 4 Bhola Singh, returned to the village and took Harbans Singh, Jagroop Singh Sarpanch, Gurcharan Singh etc. along with him to the field whereat Manohar Singh was lying dead. A 12 bore double barreled gun was lying by his side. It was alleged that a dispute had ensued between Manohar Singh and the accused-appellant about 15 days back about late diversion of irrigation channel water to his field and this was the immediate motive for the accused to have killed Manohar Singh.. On this, PW 2 Bhan Singh immediately registered Ex. P/6 FIR vide No. 103/86 under section 302, Indian Procedure Code and under section 27, Arms Act and he proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He found Manohar Singh lying dead on the stack of Narma. Ex. P/7 site-plan was prepared in the presence of PW 4 Bhola Singh @ Harbhey Singh. He also prepared inquest report Ex. P/8. In the meantime, PW 7 Vasudev Bhatt, Circle Officer, Sangaria, also arrived on the scene. He took up the investigation. He sent for the Medical Officer PW 8 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Medical Jurist, Sri Ganganagar. He prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body vide Ex. P/12. The gun lying on the spot was seized and taken into possession vide Ex. P/13. Blood stained mattress, bed-sheet and a pillow, being blood stained, were seized vide Ex. P/16. Blood stained as well as sample soils were collected and sealed. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta performed the postmortem of the dead body on the spot and found a lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x going deep into brain matter on the right fronto parietal region, 11/2" above right eye-brow which was oblique and brain matter was coming out. The margins of wound were inverted. On dissection and opening of the skull at suture anterior and middle cranial fossa was found to be fractured and the wound went right to left downwards obliquely. Left fronton parietal lobe was also found to be lacerated and multiple pellets, was and cork pieces were found in the left anterior and middle cranial fossa. On such examination, it was medically opined that the skull wound was caused by a fire arm. The cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to brain caused by a fire arm. 3. On such examination, it was medically opined that the skull wound was caused by a fire arm. The cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to brain caused by a fire arm. 3. Wearing apparels were also seized from the body of the deceased and taken into possession by Mr. Bhatt. 4. During the course of investigation, it was on 12.12.1986 that the accused came to the house of PW 6 Nayab Singh at about 12 noon and he confessed, in presence of one Makhhan Singh that he had taken up the gun lying by the side of Manohar Singh (deceased) who was sleeping on the stack of Narma and he shot him dead and he was seen by PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh while doing so and hence he left the gun at the spot and fled away. He further requested that since he was the murderer of Manohar Singh so he be produced at the Police Station. On this, Nayab Singh took the accused to the Police Station whereat PW 7 Vasudev Bhatt was present. Shri Bhatt arrested the accused vide Ex. P/17 arrest memo. Lastly, all the clothes, mattress as well as gun and alive as well as an empty cartridge found in the chamber of gun besides three wad pieces and 47 lead pellets were sent for chemical examination to the R.F.S.L. whereat, on examination, the gun was certified to be a serviceable and having been fired some time before. It could not be confirmed whether the cartridge case (empty) was fired from the same gun. 5. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections was filed against the accused in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, who committed it to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangar. The accused was charged with the commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC as well as under section 27 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the trial was completed. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and he denied that he had caused death of Manohar Singh as alleged by the prosecution. Pleading innocence, he has stated that Manohar Singh himself might have caused his death. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and he denied that he had caused death of Manohar Singh as alleged by the prosecution. Pleading innocence, he has stated that Manohar Singh himself might have caused his death. No defence evidence was produced. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, mainly relying on the statements of PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh, who are alleged to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence as well as PW 6 Nayab Singh, before whom the accused is alleged to have made extra-judicial confession, held that it was the accused-appellant alone who had caused the death of Manohar Singh by a gun fire, so, he proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully perused the impugned judgment along with the case record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Judge fell into a grave error while accepting the ocular testimony of PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh as eye-witnesses, whereas, as he further contended they were never eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence. It was a clear case of blind murder and no body had seen the accused appellant committing the murder of the deceased. Both Bhola Singh as well as Tara Singh are, admittedly, being cousins of PW 3 Gurjant Singh, in near relation, and, therefore, they are directly interested in Gurjant Singh. Their conduct was most unnatural and unreliable. They did not report the alleged occurrence immediately to any of the family members of the deceased at the village. On the contrary, Bhola Singh is alleged to have gone to Sri Ganganagar straightaway and reported the incident to PW 3 Gurjant Singh. Consequently, there was an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR at the Police Station by Gurjant Singh. The explanation so advanced in an attempt to explain such delay is far from being reliable and acceptable. PW 6 Nayab Singh is wholly unreliable witness. Consequently, there was an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR at the Police Station by Gurjant Singh. The explanation so advanced in an attempt to explain such delay is far from being reliable and acceptable. PW 6 Nayab Singh is wholly unreliable witness. There was no rhyme or reason for the accused to have abruptly after a lapse of about seven days from the alleged occurrence to have appeared at the residence of Nayab Singh and to have blurred out the alleged confession admitting that it was the accused himself who had murdered Manohar Singh. PW 7 Shri Bhatt also took inordinately long time to arrest the accused-appellant and there is no plausible explanation for such delayed arrest of the accused-appellant. There was no light at the scene of occurrence. Even if it is believed that Bhola Singh and Tara Singh had gone to the field of Gurjant Singh on a tractor-trolley to fetch Narma stack, they could not have seen and identified the accused in the manner reported to by such witnesses. As a result, the thrust of whole argument is that there was no eye-witness nor there was any so called extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant and the prosecution evidence is, unnatural and unreliable and hence it is a case of no evidence. 10. The learned trial Judge took a superficial view of the evidence without resorting to a critical examination and appreciation of the same and hence the conclusion of guilt of the accused-appellant arrived at by the learned trial Judge is erroneous and perverse on which conviction for an offence of murder is not sustainable.On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor, as assisted by Mr. H.S. Sandhu, argued that there is no valid reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh as well as PW 6 Nayab Singh. The accused-appellant having been admonished by the deceased about 15 days prior to the occurrence for the formers having diverted irrigation water channel late and as such there having arisen a quarrel between the two, the accused-appellant seized the opportunity to have killed him.The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh are the alleged eye-witnesses. PW 6 Nayab Singh testified to prove extra-judicial statement of the accused-appellant. Out of them, PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh are the alleged eye-witnesses. PW 6 Nayab Singh testified to prove extra-judicial statement of the accused-appellant. PW 2 Bhan Singh, H.C. and PW 7 Vasudev Bhatt, Dy. S.P., are the investigating officers. PW 1 Vichitra Singh, Constable, is the carrier of sealed articles to the R.F.S.L. PW 3 Gurjant Singh father of the deceased, lodged FIR. PW 8 Dr. R.K. Gupta, Medical Jurist, conducted postmortem of the dead body.So far as actual-unnatural-violent death of Manohar Singh is concerned, there is no challenge to this fact. PWs Gurjant Singh, Bhola Singh, Bhan Singh and Vasudev Bhatt, who found the dead body lying at the scene of the occurrence, as supported by inquest report Ex. P/12 and Ex. P/8 Panchayatnama, as also PW 8 Dr. R.K. Gupta, have conclusively proved that Manohar Singh did die and that too of a gun shot injury to the skull resulting in damaging his brain fatally. Ex. P/19 Postmortem Report corroborates statement of Dr. Gupta. There is nothing against it. 11. Now, most crucial point for adjudication is whether the accused-appellant caused the fatal injury, by firing a gun shot, to the deceased Manohar Singh. 12. PW 4 Bhola Singh, as supported by PW 5 Tara Singh and PW 3 Gurjant Singh stated that since Gurjant Singh had to go to attend to his brother's daughter under treatment at Ganganagar Hospital so he had asked both Bhola Singh and Tara Singh to transport plucked and stacked lot of Narma lying in his field, in the tractor-trolley of Tara Singh, before he left for Ganganagar in the evening of 5.12.1986.Bhola Singh stated that he along with Tara Singh went on tractor-trolley to the field of Gurjant Singh and no sooner they turned their tractor towards stack of Narma, they saw in the head light of the tractor, that Manohar Singh was sleeping on the stack of narma while the accused was standing by his side holding a gun who fired the same at Manohar Singh to kill him, on which, they challenged him and the accused fled away dropping the gun on the spot. They went close to Manohar Singh who did not respond to their call and breathed his last. They went close to Manohar Singh who did not respond to their call and breathed his last. He went to Ganganagar and informed PW 3 Gurjant Singh about the incident, as is also supported by Gurjant Singh and also by PW 5 Tara Singh. 13. PW 5 Tara Singh has also, while corroborating the above statement of PW 4 Bhola Singh deposed that on turning the tractor towards the spot where Manohar Singh was lying on the stack of Narma, they saw that the accused-appellant was seen standing near Manohar Singh, holding a gun. They had covered a little more distance and the accused fired the gun to kill Manohar Singh who, on being challenged by them, fled away, leaving the gun there. Manohar Singh was groaning with pain and died immediately. He remained on the spot while PW 4 Bhola Singh went to Ganganagar to inform Gurjant Singh. 14. PW 3 Gurjant Singh, supporting above versions, stated that he returned to his village, summoned Jagroop Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Harbans Singh etc. and took them to the place of occurrence whereat Manohar Singh was lying killed. He went to Police Station, Lalgarh and lodged Ex. P/5 written report before PW 2 Bhan Singh, as supported by the latter, on which Ex. P/6 FIR was registered. 15. PW 2 Bhan Singh and PW 7 Vasudev went to the spot and, on examination of the dead body of the deceased, prepared Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/12 respectively and seized gun from the place of occurrence along with a cartridge case and a live cartridge. 16. Admittedly, PW 4 Bhola Singh, PW 5 Tara Singh and PW 3 Gurjant Singh are, being cousins, though not real, are related and, as is borne out of their statements hereinbefore, both PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh are interested witnesses. However, mere relationship cannot be a valid ground for either discarding their testimony or to view the same with a stigma. Like any other witness, their testimony has to be appreciated and evaluated and in case the same does not stand to well recognised tests of criminal jurisprudence, there being further reason for their deposing against the accused, Court may be justified to seek independent corroboration to base conviction of the accused, on their testimony. This warrants a cautious and careful scrutiny and scanning of evidence of such related witnesses. This warrants a cautious and careful scrutiny and scanning of evidence of such related witnesses. In this case, both PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh, admittedly, did not inform anybody in the village or at the nearby residence of Gurjant Singh. Bhola Singh is stated to have reached Ganganagar to inform Gurjant Singh at about 11.00 p.m. without informing anybody in the village or on the way. None of them went to Police Station, Lalgarh situated at a distance of hardly 10 kms. Tara Singh alone is alleged to have remained with the dead body. On the contrary, PW 3 Gurjant Singh and PW 4 Bhola Singh did state that the women-folk at the house of the deceased were wailing. 17. Though PW 4 Bhola Singh did not support nor Gurbachan Singh has been examined yet, inspite of omission in Ex. D/2 statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code to lend false support to the statement of PW 3 Gurjant Singh, PW 5 Tara Singh stated that Gurbachan Singh had come to the spot and learnt about the incident. Were it so, Gurbachan Singh or he himself could have gone to the Police Station to report the incident or, at least village Sarpanch and other villagers could have been informed. Had Gurbachan Singh gone to the place of occurrence and returned to village thereafter many villagers particularly relations of the deceased could have been prompted to reach the spot before Gurjant Singh and Bhola Singh are alleged to have reached there, after 2 a.m. in the night.Both Bhola Singh and Tara Singh stated that they saw, at the first sight, accused holding the gun, standing by the side of the deceased and, no sooner the head light of the tractor flashed on the 'narma', accused fired a single shot, dropped the gun and, left from there. Though, related and interested as they are, none tried to chase the accused and he was allowed to walk away scot-free. He was not apprehended for about 7 days though it is nobody's case that he could not be traced out or he had gone underground, before his arrest on 12.12.1986 vide Ex. P/17, by PW 7 Vasudev Bhatt. 18. Accused could not have waited only for being noticed in the light of tractor and, thereafter, having fired at the deceased. This is most unnatural and unbelievable. P/17, by PW 7 Vasudev Bhatt. 18. Accused could not have waited only for being noticed in the light of tractor and, thereafter, having fired at the deceased. This is most unnatural and unbelievable. Had Bhola Singh and Tara Singh noticed the accused so armed and standing by the side of the deceased, aiming at him and hitting him with a gun-fire, their natural immediate reaction would have been to challenge loudly to restrain from doing so. None shouted or cried. He was not given any pursuit. No body was informed of the occurrence except, as alleged, PW 3 Gurjant Singh. Had there been any incident visibly before PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh, they could not have taken the same so calmly and secretly without informing villagers and the relations of the deceased in the village. Admissions of PW 3 Gurjant Singh and PW 4 Bhola Singh that the ladies of the deceased's family were wailing, leads to the natural conclusion that there was none to have witnessed the actual occurrence and, after great deliberations, after a delay of 11 hours Ex. P/5 report was lodged at the Police Station of Lalgarh, situated at a distance of 10 kms. only. Again, Ex P/6, FIR based on Ex. P/5 report, allegedly lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 6.12.1986, was delivered at the residence of the Munsif Magistrate, Sadulshahar on 7.12.1986 at 7.30 a.m., exactly 24 hours after the alleged registration of the FIR Ex. P/6. This further strengthens the suspicion about even Ex. P/5 report having been lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 6.12.1986 and the delayed FIR leads to the suspicion that it was not known till Ex. P/6 was, in fact, registered and, hence, after inquiry and deliberations, suspicion having been aroused against the accused who is alleged to have been reprimanded or admonished by the deceased for the former's late diversion of irrigation at channelled water to the field to the file of the deceased, accused appears to have been fixed up as a murderer. 19. How did the accused know that the deceased was alone in the field ? How did he manage to get the gun handy ? 19. How did the accused know that the deceased was alone in the field ? How did he manage to get the gun handy ? In case 'Narma' was to be loaded in tractor-trolley and transported home, was it natural for the deceased to have slept with the beddings on the Narma and that too without any covering in the winter of December even 8.30 p.m. ? The gun is stated to belong to one Gurdeo Singh, a relation of PW 3 Gurjant Singh, who had gone to Punjab, leaving the gun allegedly under lock and key at the residence of Gurjant Singh. If it were so, how could Manohar Singh, hardly of age of 16 years, break open almirah and take away gun surreptitiously, without the knowledge of elder members of the family of the deceased. How could the accused have known about it ? Gurdeo Singh and the wife of Gurjant Singh have not been examined to lend corroboration to the statement of PW 3 Gurjant Singh. Besides, Gurjant Singh stated that he had left his own licensed 7 am gun at his house which was not taken by the accused. A gun is usually kept handy for one's own protection. It sounds unnatural that Gurdeo Singh went to Punjab leaving behind his gun specially when Punjab was burning with violence and terrorism. Manohar Singh had his father's 7 am rifle handy and hence, why should he have, as alleged, stolen the gun of Gurdeo Singh to be used in his own end. 20. On consideration of statement of Dr. R.K. Gupta, he could not provide any expertise in regard to distance of muzzle of the gun from which the same was fired at the deceased and, even inspite of the gun allegedly having been fired from a distance of 3 to 4 feet, there were no marks or signs of blackening, scorching or tattooing on or near the entrance wound on Pronto-parietal region, seat of the single fatal injury. 21. So, it is also not possible to totally exclude the possibility that it could have also been a case of suicide else where was the necessity of his taking away the gun of Gurdeo Singh by breaking open almirah, without the knowledge of the house-inmates. 22. 21. So, it is also not possible to totally exclude the possibility that it could have also been a case of suicide else where was the necessity of his taking away the gun of Gurdeo Singh by breaking open almirah, without the knowledge of the house-inmates. 22. As regards the alleged motive, though the same is never an essential ingredient of the offence, in case it is reasonably established, on sufficiency of prosecution evidence, the same further strengthens the prosecution story, as regards its credibility. The alleged exchange of words took place about a fortnight before. It is not unusual for the village-boys to pick up such quarrels and hot words do often get exchanged. Accused used work at the field of the deceased often. So he could not have been so strongly motivated to do Manohar Singh to death. So, in our considered opinion, such a trivial incident can hardly furnish a strong motive enough to kill somebody at the risk of one's own peril. 23. Having regard to the most unnatural and unbelievable conduct of PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh specially when they are near relations of PW 3 Gurjant Singh, inordinate delay in lodging FIR and even, then, forwarding the same not before a further unexplained delay of 24 hours, in disregard of mandatory provisions of Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code, such delay is fatal to the prosecution. 24. The apex Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 has held : "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." When the place of occurrence was hardly 10 kms. away and tractor was available and PW 4 Bhola Singh could go on tractor to Ganganagar whereat S.P. and other senior officers or headquartered and, even on return or while in the process of returning, the incident could have been reported to the police. It was not done. The only conclusion is that the informant and all others were groping in the dark as to who could be the possible murderer or who should be booked or fixed up as a murderer and, lastly, after great deliberations, accused came handy to be one. Therefore, statements of PW 4 Bhola Singh and PW 5 Tara Singh are not wholly reliable and worth credence to base conviction for murder on their testimony. They are related and interested witnesses and their testimony suffers from intrinsic weaknesses and does not inspire credibility. 25. PW 7 Nayab Singh stated that the accused came to his house on 12.12.1986 and, in presence of Manohar Singh, he blurred out a confession admitting that he had killed Manohar Singh by firing a gun shot at him and injuring fatally. It was seventh day of the occurrence. He was not summoned by Nayab Singh. He was not his relation. They belong to different castes. Accused did not seek any favour or promise from Nayab Singh, Makhan Singh, a stranger, was also present. He has not been examined to lend credibility to the statement of Nayab Singh PW 7 Mr. Bhatt did not try to apprehend the accused before 3 p.m. of 12.12.1986, when he is alleged to have been arrested vide Ex. P/17. 26. Besides, neither PW 2 Bhan Singh nor did PW 7 Mr. Bhatt show the place from where PWs. Bhola Singh and Tara Singh actually saw the occurrence, in Ex. P/7 site-plan, as alleged. It was a dark night, as admitted by Bhan Singh. P/17. 26. Besides, neither PW 2 Bhan Singh nor did PW 7 Mr. Bhatt show the place from where PWs. Bhola Singh and Tara Singh actually saw the occurrence, in Ex. P/7 site-plan, as alleged. It was a dark night, as admitted by Bhan Singh. They were about 1 killa's distance when they allegedly saw the accused with a gun. It could not have been a sheer coincidence that the accused took up the gun and the tractor appeared and, as alleged, in its headlight, he was seen and identified from such a great distance. This is all quite unnatural and far from worth credence. 27. Both Investigating Officers failed to search and find out finger prints of culprit on the gun recovered from the scene of occurrence who had lastly handled the gun. Similarly, no efforts were made to trace out foot prints of the culprit who had gone to the deceased and shot him to death to fix up his identity as that of being murderer. 28. Thus, when considered cumulatively, the facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, the prosecution evidence is not worth whole reliance and the same is not sufficient to bring home guilt to the accused to be liable for commission of murder beyond reasonable manner of doubt. The prosecution story may be true but, in order to hold the accused guilty of such a serious offence the same must be true and there being much distance to be travelled between may be true and must be true, the same has to be travelled through a reliable, clinching and unimpeachable evidence. There is absence of it. 29. On the same ground, when it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant is the murderer, it cannot be held to be proved that he had used the gun recovered from the place of occurrence unlawfully to commit any offence much less a murder. 30. The learned trial Judge clearly appears to have taken a superficial view of the matter while relying upon the evidence of PW Bhola Singh, PW 5 Tara Singh and PW 6 Nayab Singh to hold the appellant guilty. 30. The learned trial Judge clearly appears to have taken a superficial view of the matter while relying upon the evidence of PW Bhola Singh, PW 5 Tara Singh and PW 6 Nayab Singh to hold the appellant guilty. We find it unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW 4 Bhola Singh, PW 5 Tara Singh, PW 3 Guriant Singh and PW 6 Nayab Singh in absence of substantial independent corroboration internally and externally, of their evidence, which in this case is totally wanting. 31. Thus, the prosecution 'case does not travel beyond doubt. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 32. We, therefore, accept this appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside thereby acquitting him of offences punishable under section 302, IPC and under section 27, Arms Act. He be released forthwith in case he is no longer required in any other case. The gun seized in the case shall be returned to Gurdeo Singh or, in case of his death, to his legal heir on production of a valid arm-licence.Appeal allowed. *******