V. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE accused/appellants Keshri Singh alias Ramu and another (Cr. A. No. 780/97) and accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar (Cr. A. No. 781/97) stand convicted for offence punishable under section 326 in the alternative 326 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) in default of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months, by judgment dated 7-4-1997, in Sessions Trial No. 48/94, by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panna. ( 2 ) SINCE both the above Criminal Appeal (Cr. A. No. 780/97) of accused/appellants Keshri Singh alias Ramu and Amratlal and Cr. A. No. 781/97 of accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar are directed against the same judgment, therefore they are being disposed off by this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case stated in brief is, that prior to the incident i. e. on 9-5-94 injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) was assaulted by accused/appellants Ramesh Kumar Shukla and Dwarka Prasad Pathak, due to which he sustained injuries and fracture in the nose. He reported the matter to police. He was admitted in the Distt. Hospital at Panna for the treatment of the injuries as above. On the date of incident i. e. on 14-5-94 at about 4. 00 a. m. the injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) was sleeping in the ward of hospital. His brother Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) was also sleeping on the floor by the side of his bed. The accused/appellants came there and threw acid on complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) due to which he sustained acid burn injuries. He was immediately taken to doctor O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) by his brother Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) and others. Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) sent intimation (Ex. P/3) of the above incident to police Kotwali, Panna. ( 4 ) HEAD Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) was sent to the hospital. He made enquiries and submitted his report (Ex. P/11) to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Panna. On the basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P/12) was recorded, and offence was registered against the accused/appellants. Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) gave requisition (Ex. He made enquiries and submitted his report (Ex. P/11) to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Panna. On the basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P/12) was recorded, and offence was registered against the accused/appellants. Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) gave requisition (Ex. P/10) for medical examination of injured Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7 ). Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) examined the injuries of Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7 ). He found that there were acid burn injuries on his face, forehead, right arm and elbow as also on eyes. Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (P. W. 5) also examined Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) and gave him further treatment. Bed Head Ticket of injured is Ex. P/5. Injured Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) was referred from District Hospital, Panna to All India Medical Institute, New Delhi, for plastic surgery. After concluding usual formalities during investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants by police Kotwali, Panna. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court framed charges for offence punishable under S. 307 in the alternative 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellants. They abjured guilt. The defence of the accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar Shukla is that he was a Dy. Ranger and had seized timber belonging to the Forest Department from the complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) for which he was prosecuted. Therefore, the complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) bore grudge against him and has falsely implicated him. Similarly, the defence of accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu is that he was the witness in the above case of seizure of timber from injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) and therefore the complainant-injured Pramod (P. W. 7) has falsely implicated him. Accused/appellant Amritlal has taken stand in defence that since he is a friend of accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu he has been falsely involved in the case. ( 6 ) EACH of the accused/appellants were held guilty for offence punishable under section 326 alternatively under Section 326 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused/appellants has urged that the finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence, is not sustainable. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused/appellants has urged that the finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence, is not sustainable. It has been submitted in this connection that the statements of injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) are unnatural and are not reliable. They did not disclose the names of accused/appellants either to the doctor or to the police. The written report of Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) lodged immediately after the incident was not produced in the case. It has further been submitted that the mandatory provisions of S. 157 of Criminal Procedure Code were not duly complied with, and the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) was not sent promptly to the Magistrate, and that there was a possibility of manipulation therein. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the respondent/state has supported the conviction and sentence of all the accused/appellants by the impugned judgment. It has been urged that the statement of complainant/injured Pramod (P. W. 7) and other witnesses are reliable and the conviction of the appellants was wholly justified. ( 9 ) THE complainant/injured Pramod (P. W. 7) giving the background of the incident has stated that on 9-5-94 he was assaulted by the accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar Shukla and one Dwarka Prasad Pathak by 'lathi'. He lodged report of that incident at P. S. Kotwali and was admitted in the distt. hospital at Panna, for treatment of injuries received by him in the said incident. ( 10 ) NARRATING the incident complainant/injured Pramod (P. W. 7) states that on 14-5-94 at about 4. 00 a. m. in the morning he was sleeping in his bed No. 5 at district Hospital Panna, and his brother was also sleeping near his bed on the floor. He states that suddenly somebody switched on the light, due to which he awoke from sleep and saw accused/appellants Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Amrit 'badhai' and Keshri Singh alias Ramu standing there. He further states that accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla was having a glass bottle while Keshri Singh alias Ramu was having a glass tumbler. Accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu threw the contents of the glass tumbler on his face. He tried to save himself but sustained acid burns on his arms and face. He further states that accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla was having a glass bottle while Keshri Singh alias Ramu was having a glass tumbler. Accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu threw the contents of the glass tumbler on his face. He tried to save himself but sustained acid burns on his arms and face. He shouted that accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu has thrown acid on him and chased the accused/appellants for about 20-25 paces. Accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu thereupon shouted that he would be shot. Thereafter, his brother Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) awoke from sleep. Hamid (P. W. 1) and other patients admitted in the ward as well as their relatives assembled. However, by that time the accused/appellant had escaped. He stated that thereafter he was taken to the duty doctor to whom he narrated the incident, and also disclosed to him the names of accused/appellants. ( 11 ) PRADEEP Khare (P. W. 2) - brother of injured Pramod (P. W. 7), has stated that at the time of incident he was sleeping by the side of bed of injured Pramod (P. W. 7 ). He saw the accused/appellants coming in the ward. He states that appellant Ramesh Shukla poured some liquid from a bottle in the glass tumbler held by accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu. Thereafter, the accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu threw the liquid of the glass on his brother Pramod (P. W. 7), who shouted for help. Pradeep (P. W. 2) says that he chased accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu, but the latter escaped. He also states that while he and his brother Pramod (P. W. 7) were trying to chase, accused/appellant Keshri Singh alias Ramu, the latter told accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla to shoot them. He states that he took injured Pramod (P. W. 7) to Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) who sent intimation (Ex. P/3) to P. S. Kotwali district Panna. Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) examined injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7 ). Medical report recorded by Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) is Ex. P/4. He states that he took injured Pramod (P. W. 7) to Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) who sent intimation (Ex. P/3) to P. S. Kotwali district Panna. Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) examined injured/complainant Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7 ). Medical report recorded by Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) is Ex. P/4. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused/appellants has submitted that the statements as above of complainant/injured Pramod (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) though on first glance appear to be apparently consistent, but closer scrutiny thereof would reveal that they are unnatural and suffer from basic infirmities, and are therefore wholly unreliable. ( 13 ) IT has been pointed out in the above context that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) was admitted in the general ward of the hospital and was sleeping, and claims to have got up from sleep as the light of the ward was switched on. It has been urged that had the accused/appellants come with a plan to throw acid on him, as is the prosecution case, they would not have switched on the electric light; as by doing so they incurred the risk of attracting the attention of the victim and other patients as well as their attendants present in the general ward. It has also been urged that statements of the above witnesses regarding accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla holding a bottle and pouring its contents in the glass tumbler held by accused/appellant Keshri Singh, is also highly unnatural and do not deserve to be believed. It has further been urged that had injured Pramod Kumar (P. W. 7) and Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) disclosed the names of accused/appellants as the miscreants, Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) would certainly have mentioned their names in his requisition (Ex. P/3) sent to police Kotwali immediately after the incident. However, the intimation (Ex. P/3) does not contain the names of the accused/appellants. ( 14 ) IT may be noticed in the above context that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) has admitted that electric light of the ward is switched off at the night time. He states that he was sleeping and got up as the light was suddenly switched on. He has further stated that on getting up from the sleep he saw all the accused/appellants standing near his bed. He states that he was sleeping and got up as the light was suddenly switched on. He has further stated that on getting up from the sleep he saw all the accused/appellants standing near his bed. He states that accused Ramesh Shukla was holding a bottle and the accused/appellant Keshri threw acid kept from the glass tumbler which he was holding. He states that he chased the accused/appellants for about 20-25 paces whereafter accused/appellant Keshri Singh incited other accused to shoot him, upon which his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) got up from sleep. Thereafter many persons assembled there. ( 15 ) THUS, from the above statement of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) it would appear that his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) woke up and came to his rescue after the incident of acid throwing and after he had given a chase to the accused/appellants, for about 20-25 paces, and after the accused/appellants threatened to shoot him. However, his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) has given a different version in this regard. He states that he was sitting by the side of bed of his brother Pramod (P. W. 7), and was dozing when the accused/appellants came there, upon which he got up. He states to have seen accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla pouring some liquid kept in the glass tumbler held by accused/appellant Keshri Singh, who threw its contents on his brother Pramod (P. W. 7 ). He states that accused/appellants Keshri Singh and Ramesh Shukla entered the verandah of the ward while the accused/appellant Amrit stood outside the verandah. Pradeep (P. W. 2) further states that he tried to chase accused/appellant Keshri Singh and Ramesh but they ran away. ( 16 ) IT may be noted that though initially in his examination-in-chief Pradeep (P. W. 2) states that he had seen the incident from the time the accused/appellants entered the verandah of the ward; but he has resiled from his above statement during cross-examination, and in paras 15 and 16 of his statement has admitted that he did not see the accused/appellants near the bed of his brother injured Pramod (P. W. 7), but he saw them after the acid was thrown on his brother. It may also be noticed that in his case diary statement (Ex. It may also be noticed that in his case diary statement (Ex. D/1), he has not mentioned that accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar Shukla had poured some liquid from the bottle in the glass tumbler held by the accused/appellant Keshri Singh. There is also an omission in his police diary statement that he had seen the accused/appellant Keshri Singh throwing acid. It may further be noticed in the above context that Pradeep (P. W. 2) states that he was dozing at the time of incident. In the circumstances, obviously it was not possible for him to have seen the accused/appellants coming into the ward and pouring of liquid from the bottle by accused/appellant Ramesh Shukla in the glass tumbler held by accused/appellant Keshri Singh, as he has claimed in his statement. ( 17 ) IT may further be noticed that Pramod (P. W. 7) is that after he gave a chase to the accused/appellants for about 20-25 paces, he had shouted for help, whereafter his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) got up and came along with others. However, as against this Pradeep (P. W. 2) claims to have seen the incident from the very beginning. ( 18 ) IT may also be noticed that had Pradeep (P. W. 2) seen the accused/appellants entering the ward and appellant Ramesh Shukla pouring contents of the bottle in the glass tumbler held by accused/appellant Keshri Singh, then Pradeep Khare (P. W. 2) would not have kept silent and would have leapt up to save his brother Pramod (P. W. 7) from the eventuality that he later met, and at least would have immediately shouted for help, but he does not appear to have done so. ( 19 ) IT may also be noticed that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) states that the accused/appellants switched on the light after they entered in the ward. However, Pradeep (P. W. 2) does not state so. Moreover, the conduct of the accused/appellants of switching on the light does not appear to be natural. ( 19 ) IT may also be noticed that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) states that the accused/appellants switched on the light after they entered in the ward. However, Pradeep (P. W. 2) does not state so. Moreover, the conduct of the accused/appellants of switching on the light does not appear to be natural. If the accused/appellants had come with the object of pouring acid on the injured Pramod (P. W. 7), they would have endeavoured to take precautions to conceal their presence and identity and therefore, they would not certainly have taken the risk of switching on the light, which naturally involved the possibility of attracting the attention of not only the injured and his brother, but also of the other patients, and their attendants present in the ward. ( 20 ) IT may also be noticed that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) has stated that he was asleep at the time of incident, and had woken-up as the light was switched on. However, if that statement is to be accepted, then he could not have possibly seen as to which accused had switched on the light. But he claims to have seen accused/appellant Keshri Singh switching on the light as would be clear from para 18 of his statement. Therefore, the statement as above of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) appears to have been made to substantiate his assertion that he could identify the culprits in the electric light. ( 21 ) IT may further be noticed in the above context that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) has stated that he disclosed the name of accused/appellants to Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4 ). Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) has sent intimation (Ex. P/3) about the incident to Police Kotwali Panna. However, in that report (Ex. P/3), no mention of the names of culprits find place, and it only states that acid was thrown on injured Pramod (P. W. 7 ). Normally had the injured Pramod (P. W. 7) or his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) had informed Dr. Mour (P. W. 4) the names of culprits, the same would have been mentioned the latter in his report (Ex. P/3 ). He has not done so. In fact, Dr. Normally had the injured Pramod (P. W. 7) or his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) had informed Dr. Mour (P. W. 4) the names of culprits, the same would have been mentioned the latter in his report (Ex. P/3 ). He has not done so. In fact, Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) has candidly stated in his cross-examination that the complainant did not tell him the name of culprits, but only stated that acid was thrown on him. The above statement of Dr. Mour (P. W. 4) goes to falsify the statements of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) that they had identified the miscreants and had named them to Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4 ). ( 22 ) IT may further be noticed in the above connection that Govind Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 3) was also present at the time of incident as his wife was admitted in the same ward in which injured Pramod (P. W. 7) was admitted. Govind Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 3) has stated that injured Pramod (P. W. 7) in his examination-in-chief has stated that injured Pramod Khare disclosed that the persons with whom he had a quarrel earlier had thrown acid on him. Govind Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 3) has further stated that he does not remember the name of assailants. However, it may be noted that Govind Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 3) has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has resiled from substantial portion of his case diary statement (Ex. P/2 ). In fact, in his case diary statement he has stated that injured Pramod Khare (P. W. 2) had disclosed that 'somebody' had thrown acid on him. Therefore, the diary statement as above of Govind Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 3) also belies the statement of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) that he disclosed the name of culprits immediately after the incident. Hamid Khan (P. W. 1) who was also allegedly present at the time of incident has not supported the prosecution case. ( 23 ) THE evidence on record as above, clearly indicates that the statements of injured Pramod Kumar (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) that they had seen and identified the miscreants and had disclosed their names to Dr. ( 23 ) THE evidence on record as above, clearly indicates that the statements of injured Pramod Kumar (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) that they had seen and identified the miscreants and had disclosed their names to Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) and also to others, is not borne out, and is not corroborated from the material and evidence on record. It may further be noted that Pradeep (P. W. 2) has stated in para 22 that on the date of incident he had lodged a report in writing at the police station. However, that written report lodged by Pradeep (P. W. 2) has not been placed on record, as would be clear from the deposition of witnesses as well as from the trial Court record. It may be noted that had the incident taken place, as above, and if Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) had immediately come to enquire into the matter on receiving intimation (Ex. P/3) about the incident, the injured Pramod Kumar Khare (P. W. 7), or in any case his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) would have lodged the report of the matter and named the accused/appellants as the miscreants, had they seen the latter committing the offence. The non production of written report lodged by Pradeep (P. W. 2) is a very material circumstance and gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution case, and it could be assumed in the circumstances, that the names of accused/appellants were not mentioned in the written report given by Pradeep (P. W. 2 ). ( 24 ) IT may also be noticed in the above connection that Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) in his requisition (Ex. P/10) has not mentioned the names of appellants in the relevant column regarding the particulars of the offence. It has only been mentioned that the injured was having burn injuries on his face, right hand and fore-arm. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for accused/appellants has also submitted that due compliance of section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code has not been shown to be made, and therefore, it is doubtful that the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) of the case was recorded immediately. It has therefore been urged that in view of the fact that in the intimation (Ex. P/12) of the case was recorded immediately. It has therefore been urged that in view of the fact that in the intimation (Ex. P/3) sent from the District Hospital Panna, no names of miscreants throwing acid on Pramod (P. W. 7), were mentioned, there is a possibility that the names of accused/appellants were mentioned in the First Information Report (Ex. P/12), recorded on 15-5-95 i. e. on the next day of the incident, as an afterthought, in order to implicate the accused/appellants who had previous enmity with the injured Pramod (P. W. 7 ). ( 26 ) IT may be noticed in the above connection that Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) had stated that after receiving memo (Ex. P/9) from the hospital on 14-5-94 he proceeded to the hospital and submitted a requisition (Ex. P/10) for medical examination of injured Pramod (P. W. 7 ). It may be noticed, that in the intimation (Ex. P/9) sent from the hospital and addressed to Station House Officer, Police, Kotwali, as also in the requisition (Ex. P/10), the names of miscreants have not been mentioned. ( 27 ) IT may also be noted that intimation (Ex. P/10) is dated 14-5-94 and was sent at about 6. 00 p. m. , in the evening while the incident had taken place in the earlier hour of morning of 14-5-94 at about 4. 00 a. m. and an earlier intimation (Ex. P/3) was already sent by Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4), from the hospital intimating about the Police Kotwali, Panna. ( 28 ) FURTHER it may be noticed that Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) has stated that he submitted his report (Ex. P/11) dated 14-5-94, on the basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P/12) has been recorded. It may be noted that FIR (Ex. P/12) was recorded on 15-5-94 at 1. 10 p. m. There was no reason why the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) would not have been immediately recorded, if the report (Ex. P/11) was submitted by Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) on 14-5-94 itself. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for belatedly recording the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) on the next day i. e. on 15-5-94. ( 29 ) IT may further be noticed that First Information Report (Ex. P/11) was submitted by Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8) on 14-5-94 itself. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for belatedly recording the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) on the next day i. e. on 15-5-94. ( 29 ) IT may further be noticed that First Information Report (Ex. P/12) was sent to CJM Panna on 16-5-94, as is stated by Town Inspector S. R. Pathak (P. W. 9 ). There is no explanation as to why the First Information Report was sent on 15-5-94 itself immediately after it was recorded, as is the mandate of S. 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 30 ) IT may be noted that in Arjun Malik v. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551, the importance of compliance of S. 157 has been emphasised. It has been laid down in the following words :-"the forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensible and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word "forthwith" occurring in Section 157, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159, Cr. P. C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. " ( 31 ) THE delay as above in recording the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) as well as in sending it to the CJM, and in view of the omission of the names of miscreants in the intimations (Ex. P/3) and (Ex. P/9) sent from the hospital regarding the incident on 14-5-94, and also in the requisition (Ex. P/10) of medical examination of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) given by Head Constable Gulab Singh (P. W. 8); are circumstances giving rise to strong suspicion that the names of accused/appellants as the miscreants were not disclosed by the injured Pramod (P. W. 7) till late in the evening of 14-5-95 and the miscreants were not known to the police till then. Thus, the above documents and the circumstances disclosed thereby cast heavy shadow of doubt on the veracity of the statements of injured Pramod (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) that they had seen and identified the appellants at the time of the incident. It is well settled that a man may lie but circumstances would not. In view of the previous enmity the possibility of false implication of the accused/appellants cannot be ruled out. ( 32 ) IN the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the eye witness account of the injured Pramod (P. W. 7) and his brother Pradeep (P. W. 2) suffer from discrepancies on material points and appear to be basically infirm. The statements as above are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. In fact, Dr. O. P. Mour (P. W. 4) has contradicted their version that the names of miscreants were intimated by the injured Pramod (P. W. 7) to him. Moreover, there was delay in recording First Information Report (Ex. P/12) as also delay in sending it to the Magistrate. Non-compliance of S. 157 of Cr. P. C. coupled with the above circumstances, becomes material and renders the prosecution case highly doubtful. ( 33 ) IT is clear that there has been an attempt on the part of the prosecution to make improvement and the possibility that the names of accused/appellants in the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) have been mentioned on the basis of suspicion and on account of previous enmity, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the prosecution evidence does not appear to be reliable. ( 34 ) IT is true that the incident involves a very heinous and serious offence and the injuries sustained by Pramod (P. W. 7) have life-losing effect and he may remain traumatised for his whole life, on account of the same. However, the heinousness and gravity of the offence as above, would not absolve the prosecution from adducing reliable and truthful version of the incident. As laid down in Datar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1193 : (1974 Cri LJ 908), it has been observed that 'courts of justice' cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime. As laid down in Datar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1193 : (1974 Cri LJ 908), it has been observed that 'courts of justice' cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime. Similarly in Chandran alias Surandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2148 , it has been observed that the fact that two murders which are cruel and revolting had been perpetrated in a very shocking nature should not be allowed in any way to influence the mind of the Court while examining the alleged involvement of the appellants. Suspicion however strong is not sufficient to hold a person guilty. In fact, fouler the crime the higher is the degree of proof required to establish the same. Therefore, in view of the discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case, the finding of guilt recorded against the accused/appellants appears to be erroneous. ( 35 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction as well as the sentence of accused/appellants for offence under S. 326 of I. P. C. or in the alternative 326/34 of I. P. C. , is set aside. They are acquitted. They be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal allowed. .