Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.8.1998 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/95 -State vs. Raghuveer Singh & others, whereby the appellant Rajender was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. (3). The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized below: (4). On 24.10.1991, Smt. Omi Devi w/o Sahabram submitted a report in writing a the Police Station, Sadulshahar at 7.45 A.M. It was stated in the report Ex.P.19 that at about 7.15 A.M. Sahabram went out side for the purpose of easing the call of nature. At that time Omi Devi w/o Sahabram (the first informant), was returning from the `Nohara after milching the cow. She saw that near the toilet Rajender Bhadu and Raghuveer Singh, both of whom were armed with pistols, and Jagroop Singh, who was armed with `gandasi and two other persons who were wearing turbans and had `gandasis with them, were standing. Wife of Rajender Bhadu was also there and she was saying ``enemies should not escape. Meanwhile, Rajender Bhadu entered in the toiler and with his pistol fired a shot at the head of Sahab Ram who was sitting in the toilet Raghuveer Singh also fired a shot. The first informant Omi Devi raised alarm and then her son Binder and brother Ved reached the spot. Thereafter, neighbours Rajendra, Mohan also reached the spot. At that time two persons wearing turbans were standing there. It was alleged in the First Information Report that murder of Sahab Ram was committed on account of enmity between Sahab Ram and Jagroop Singh, the cause of which was that Sahab Ram had contested an election. Thereafter, neighbours Rajendra, Mohan also reached the spot. At that time two persons wearing turbans were standing there. It was alleged in the First Information Report that murder of Sahab Ram was committed on account of enmity between Sahab Ram and Jagroop Singh, the cause of which was that Sahab Ram had contested an election. It was also mentioned in the First Information Report that, after the incident, Sahab Ram was taken to the hospital by the first informant Smt. Omi Devi and her son Binder and at the hospital the husband of first informant was declared dead. (5). On the basis of the report Ex.P.19 submitted by Smt. Omi Devi, at the Po-lice Station, Sadulshahar, the police registered a criminal case under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and the First Information Report No. 240 of 1991 (Ex.P.18) was registered at the Police Station. The investigation was commenced. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. After investigation, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sadulshahar submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh. (6). Challan had been filed by the police against three persons, namely, Raghu-veer Singh, Manohar Lal and Rajender. Consequently, three persons Raghuveer Singh, Manohar Lal and Rajender were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Raghuveer Singh was charged under Section 302 read with Section 130-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Manohar Lal was charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rajender was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. (7). The prosecution examined Mahendra Singh (PW 1), Bahadur Ram (PW 2), Ved Praksh (PW 3), Dinesh Kumar (PW 4), Smt. Omi Devi (PW 5), Dr. Harshvard-han (PW 6), Om Prakash (PW 7), Laxmi Narayan (PW 8), Jagdish Singh (PW 9), Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10), and Rajendra Kumar (PW 11) in support of the prosecution case. (7). The prosecution examined Mahendra Singh (PW 1), Bahadur Ram (PW 2), Ved Praksh (PW 3), Dinesh Kumar (PW 4), Smt. Omi Devi (PW 5), Dr. Harshvard-han (PW 6), Om Prakash (PW 7), Laxmi Narayan (PW 8), Jagdish Singh (PW 9), Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10), and Rajendra Kumar (PW 11) in support of the prosecution case. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sunil Kumar (DW 1) and Satnam Das (DW 2) were examined in defence. (8). After hearing arguments of the counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Manohar Lal and Raghuveer Singh of the charges framed against them. Accused Rajender was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and he was sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as mentioned above. The appellant Rajender has filed this appeal against his conviction as well as sentence. (9). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, there is no satisfactory evidence against the appellant; the appellant has been falsely im-plicated on account of enmity and evidence produced in defence to show that on the day and time of incident he was admitted in the hospital, has not been properly appreciated. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the accused-appellant Rajender be acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. (10). The learned Public Prosecutor has supported his conviction as well as sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar. (11). We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence on record. (12). Out of 11 prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution, Omi Devi (PW 5) is the first informant who had lodged the First Information Report Ex. P.19 at the Police Station, Sadulshahar. She claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. Ved Prakash (PW 3), whose name has been mentioned in the First Information Report reached the spot soon after on hearing the sound of gun-shot and the alarm raised by Smt. Omi Devi (PW 5). P.19 at the Police Station, Sadulshahar. She claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. Ved Prakash (PW 3), whose name has been mentioned in the First Information Report reached the spot soon after on hearing the sound of gun-shot and the alarm raised by Smt. Omi Devi (PW 5). Om Prakash (PW 7) is the police officer who was posted as Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sadulshahar on 24.10.91. The First Information Report Ex.P.19 was submitted before him. He registered a case on the basis of the report Ex.P.19, and went to the spot to conduct investigation. He conducted investigation in the case. Dr. Harshvardhan (PW 6) is the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Sahab Ram, on 24.10.91 at 11.30 A.M. and prepared the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.29. Bahadur Ram (PW 2) is the photographer who prepared the photographs Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 8 during investigation. Mahendra Singh (PW 1) has been examined for the purpose of proving the circumstance that the son of Devi Lal Mund had placed a motor cycle and said that Rajender Bhadu would take it away and, on the same day, the murder was committed at Sadulshahar. Dinesh Kumar (PW 4) is one of the Motbirs in whose presence the investigation was conducted by Om Prakash (PW 7) after reaching the scene of occurrence. (13). Jagdish Singh (PW 9) is the police officer who was given the file of inves-tigation on 1.11.91. On that day the accused Raghuveer Singh was in police custody. He gave information about a 12 bore pistol and, in pursuance of the information given by Raghuveer Singh, a 12 bore pistol had been recovered by him. Laxmi Narayan (PW 8) is the Incharge of the Malkhana. He has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the articles recovered by the Investigating Officer were deposited in the Malkhana and they remained there in safe custody till they were handed over to Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10) for taking them to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10) is the police constable who carried seven sealed packets from the Police Station, Sadulshahar to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and deposited them there. Rajendra Kumar Pareek (PW 11) is the Judicial Magistrate in whose presence the identification parade was conducted on 16.11.91. Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10) is the police constable who carried seven sealed packets from the Police Station, Sadulshahar to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and deposited them there. Rajendra Kumar Pareek (PW 11) is the Judicial Magistrate in whose presence the identification parade was conducted on 16.11.91. The prosecution case is that in the identification parade conducted before Rajendra Kumar (PW 11), Omi Devi (PW 5) identified the accused Manohar Lal correctly. (14). Sunil Kumar (DW 1), has been examined for the purpose of proving that on 22.10.91 when he was posted as male-nurse at the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, accused Rajender Bhadu (the appellant) was admitted in the hospital and entries were made in the record of the hospital. Satnam Das (DW 2) has been examined by the defence to prove that on 24.10.91, this witness went to the house of Rajender Bhadu for the purpose of taking milk and he found that Rajender Bhadu was not present at his house and he was told that Rajender Bhadu had gone out side for the purpose of medical treatment. (15). In the instant case, only three persons, namely, Rajender (the appellant), Manohar Lal and Raghuveer Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar on the charges framed against them. Raghuveer Singh and Manohar Lal have already been acquitted and the State has not filed appeal against their acquittal. Only one accused, namely, Rajender (the appellant) has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The evidence against the appellant Rajender, consists of direct evidence of two witnesses, namely, Omi Devi (PW 5) and Ved Prakash (PW 3) who are alleged to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. This circumstantial evidence, which may be legitimately described as connecting the accused-appellant Rajender with the murder of Sahab Ram is almost nil. The cause of death of Sahab Ram was the injury caused to him by a fire-arm, viz., a 12 bore country made pistol. This circumstantial evidence, which may be legitimately described as connecting the accused-appellant Rajender with the murder of Sahab Ram is almost nil. The cause of death of Sahab Ram was the injury caused to him by a fire-arm, viz., a 12 bore country made pistol. No doubt a 12 bore country made pistol was recovered during the investigation by Om Prakash (PW 7) but the recovery of the pistol does not connect the appellant Rajender with the alleged crime because the recovery of the pistol was made in pursuance of the information given by co-accused Raghuveer Singh who has been acquitted of all the charges framed against him. An empty cartridge is alleged to have been recovered from the scene of occurrence by the Investigating Officer Om Prakash (PW 7). That empty cartridge as well as the pistol recovered by the Investigating Officer Jagdish Singh (PW 9) were sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. The report Ex.P.42 received from the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur shows that the pistol was found to be in working order and had been fired but the time and its last fire could not be ascertained and on stereo comparison and microscopic examination, it could not be established that empty cartridge which was sent for examination had been fired with the pistol which was sent for examination. In view of the report of the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, empty cartridge which is alleged to have been recovered from the scene of occurrence, does not appear to have been fired by the pistol which was recovered in pursuance of the information given by co-accused Raghuveer Singh. The recovery of the empty cartridge from the scene of occurrence and the recovery of the pistol in pursuance of the information given by co-accused Raghuveer Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not incriminate the accused-appellant Rajender in any manner. (16). The only evidence against the accused-appellant Rajender is the direct evidence of Omi Devi (PW 5) and Ved Prakash (PW 3). (17). Omi Devi (PW 5) is the wife of the deceased Sahab Ram. She has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6 A.M. he went to the `Nohara for milching the cow. At about 7 A.M., when she was returning from the `Nohara, she saw Raghuveer Singh, Rajendra Bhadu and Jagrup Singh Kamred, wife of Rajender Bhadu. (17). Omi Devi (PW 5) is the wife of the deceased Sahab Ram. She has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6 A.M. he went to the `Nohara for milching the cow. At about 7 A.M., when she was returning from the `Nohara, she saw Raghuveer Singh, Rajendra Bhadu and Jagrup Singh Kamred, wife of Rajender Bhadu. Rajender Bhadu and Raghuveer Singh were armed with pistols and Jagrup Kamred and others were armed with `gandasis. At that time her husband (Sahab Ram) was inside the latrine. Above named persons went near him. Rajender Bhadu entered into the latrine and fired a shot at the head of Sahab Ram. Another shot was fired by Raghuveer Singh but it did not cause any injury to any one. Omi Devi (PW 5) has added that she raised the cry ``Maar Diya Maar Diya. At that time wife of Rajender Bhadu was exhorting other accused by saying ``do not leave Sahab Ram alive. It is stated by Omi Devi (PW 5) that on hearing her cries, her son Binda, her brother Ved Prakash, Rajendra Nai and Mohan Dhanak reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the accused ran away.The body of her husband Sahab Ram was taken out from the latrine by demolishing the wall and her husband was taken to the Government Hospital, Sadulshahar in a jeep. At the hospital, he was declared dead. Regarding the First Information Report Ex.P.19, Omi Devi (PW 5) has stated that he got the report Ex.P.19 scribed by Dinesh and affixed her thumb impression on it. Regarding the motive, she has stated that her husband had contested the election of Municipal Board and had won in the election against Jagrup and, becau-se of this enmity, her husband has been killed. In cross-examination she stated that she had brought the milk from the `Nohara before 6 A.M. after milching two she-bufallos and again went to the `Nohara for the purpose of milching three cows. It is further stated by her that when she came out of the `Nohara, Rajender Bhadu, Raghuveer Singh, wife of Rajender Bhadu, Jagrup Singh had already reached there. She improved her statement by stating that when she came out of the `Nohara she saw that her husband was inside the latrine and she supplied water to Sahab Ram and, at that time, the accused-persons were standing there. She improved her statement by stating that when she came out of the `Nohara she saw that her husband was inside the latrine and she supplied water to Sahab Ram and, at that time, the accused-persons were standing there. It is further admitted by her in the cross-examination that when she supplied water to Sahab Ram who was inside the latrine, the accused-persons did not do anything. In her cross-exa-mination, she further stated that three persons, namely, Rajender Bhadu, Raghuveer Singh, Jagrup Singh Kamred were together and all the three entered inside the latrine and Sahab Ram died on account of the shot fired by Rajender Bhadu. It is further stated by her that as soon as shot was fired, he accused ran away. The second shot according to this witness was fired outside the latrine after the accused came out of the latrine and it was fired while the accused were trying to escape. It is also stated by her that she went near her husband, touched him. He was not speaking at that time and he died at the spot. It is also admitted by Omi Devi (PW 5) that her clothes had bome stained with blood of her husband but she washed her clothes and did not hand over the clothes to the police. In cross-examination she was asked whether her husband Sahab Ram was putting the underwear and the trousers when pistol was fired at him and she replied that at that time her husband Sahab Ram was putting on underwear and trousers and when she lifted his body (after causing of injury), her trousers was not open. In her cross-examination Omi Devi (PW 5) was asked whether she raised any alarm when the accu-sed-persons were entering in the latrine and she replied that at that time, she did not raise any alarm. (18). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the statement of Omi Devi (PW 5) does not inspire confidence. She did not see any accused, and she reached the spot after the assailants had run away and, therefore, her testimo-ny, incriminating the appellant Rajender Bhadu is not reliable. (19). According to the First Information Report, when the alarm was raised by Omi Devi (PW 5), her son Binder, Ved Prakash, Rajendra Nai and Mohan Dhanka reached the place of occurrence. (19). According to the First Information Report, when the alarm was raised by Omi Devi (PW 5), her son Binder, Ved Prakash, Rajendra Nai and Mohan Dhanka reached the place of occurrence. Out of these four persons, Binder, Mohan Lal and Rajender Nai were given up by the prosecution and they were not produced. Ved Prakash (PW 3) was examined in the court. He has stated that at about 7 to 8 A.M. he heard sound of `patakha and her sister Omi Devi (PW 5) raised the cry ``Maar Diya Maar Diya. At that time, he as well as Binder went inside and saw that Rajender Bhadu and Raghuveer Singh were standing at a distance of 10 paces be-hind the latrine. He did not see anything with them and he cannot say who killed his brother Sahab Ram. Ved Prakash (PW 3) was declared hostile. He was confronted with the police statement Ex.P.17 and he denied portions `A to `B and `C to `D of police statement Ex.P.17. However, he supported the prosecution story by stating that one empty cartridge was recovered by the police from the scene of oc-currence and the same was sealed by the police. It is further stated by him that report Ex.P.19 was scribed by Dinesh at the dictation of one man to whom other persons were addressing as `Vakil. The statement of Ved Prakash (PW 3) does not in any manner incriminate the appellant Rajender. Regarding withholding of witnesses, namely, Binder, Rajender and Mohan, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that they had not seen the accused-persons as they had reached the scene of occurrence after the accused had run away and, therefore,no adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for non-production. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that Binder, Rajender and Mohan, did not see the accused-persons and, therefore, even if they had been produced, their testimony could not have incriminated the appellant Rajender. (20). For the reasons mentioned above, it is proper to say that there is no evidence other than the statement of Omi Devi (PW 5) to connect the appellant Rajender with the alleged crime. The crucial question is whether the testimony of Omi Devi (PW 5) is of sterling character and sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial question is whether the testimony of Omi Devi (PW 5) is of sterling character and sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that on the basis of solitary statement of Omi Devi (PW 5), it cannot be said that the charge against the appellant Rajender Bhadu has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are certain inherent improbabilities in the statement of Omi Devi (PW 5) and her statement is not corroborated by any other evidence. If she was eye-witness of he occurrence and if she had in fact rushed towards her husband and held him in her arms, in all probabilities her garments must have become blood stained and she had admitted this fact. But the blood stained garments were not produced before the police.She has stated that when she went to the police station, she was putting on the same clothes which had become blood stained and the police officer saw them. She did not hand over clothes to the police. Omission to handover blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer, was a serious lapse on the part of Omi Devi (PW 5) because her blood stained clothes would have corroborated her state-ment that soonafter the occurrence she rushed towards her husband and held him in her arms and thereby got stains of blood of her clothes. Omission to hand over the blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer, suggests that she did not receive any blood stained on her clothes and the story given by her that she was present at the spot when the fire-arm injury was caused to her husband and that she touched her husband and thereby received stains of blood on her clothes, is false and that she reached the spot, after hearing the sound fo gun-fire when the accused persons had gone away and the dead body of Sahab Ram had been dropped dead on the ground of latrine and she did not find any necessity of lifting the body of her husband in her arms as he was already dead. There is another cir-cumstance which makes her testimony open to serious doubts. There is another cir-cumstance which makes her testimony open to serious doubts. She has stated that when she supplied water to her husband who was inside the latrine, all the accused-persons were standing there and they did not do anything and nor Sahab Ram do anything at that time. This statement is quite unnatural. There was no reason for any accused to be present near the latrine where the deceased Sahab Ram had gone to ease the call of nature and much less there was no reason on the part of Omi Devi (PW 5) and Sahab Ram not to object to the presence of accused there. If she was in fact an eye-witness of the occurrence, the natural conduct on her part would have been to ask the accused to go away and to raise an alarm be-cause according to her own statement, two accused-persons, namely, Rajender Bhadu and Raghuveer Singh were armed with pistols and the remaining accused-persons were armed with `gandasis. It is inconceivable, that a wife, in spite of seeing five persons,armed with deadly weapons, near the latrine, inside of which her husband had gone to ease the call of nature, would neither raise an alarm and quietly without saying a word, supplied water to her husband. It is also inconceivable that five persons, who were armed with deadly weapons and had gone to the place of occurrence with the determination to put an end to the life of Sahab Ram, would be silent spectator when the wife of the deceased, went near the latrine and supplied water to the husband who was inside the latrine. In our considered opin-ion, the story given by Omi Devi (PW 5) is competely unnatural and does not inspire confidence. (21). Her story regarding the involvement of accused Raghuveer Singh and Jagrup Singh Kamred has already been found to be not reliable. We, therefore, hold that her testimony is not sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 of the In-dian Penal Code against the appellant Rajender beyond reasonable doubt. (22). Since we have come to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Rajender, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence produced by the accused to show that on the day of the alleged occurrence, he was admitted in the hospital. (22). Since we have come to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Rajender, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence produced by the accused to show that on the day of the alleged occurrence, he was admitted in the hospital. However, in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to discuss the defence evidence also. (23). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused-appellant Rajender has stated that on 21.10.91 he was suffering from kidney pain. He went to Dholipal Hospital to consult the doctor. His case was referred to the Government Hospital and he remained admitted in the Government Hospital from 22.10.1991 to 24.10.1991. It is further stated by him that he was falsely implicated by the wife of the deceased Sahab Ram. Sunil Kumar (DW 1) is the male nurse who was working in the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh on 22.10.1991. He has stated that by Ex.P.35, Dr. Swadesh Mitra Seni directed the admission of Ra-jender Bhadu in the hospital as it was suspected that he had stone in his kidney. According to Sunil Kumar (DW 1), Rajender Bhadu was admitted in the hospital on 22.10.1991 at 8.55 P.M. and entries were made in the hospital registers and he was discharged on 24.10.1991 at 11 A.M. It is also stated by him that at about 10 P.M., an injection was administered to Rajender Bhadu but in the morning at 6 A.M. no inj-ection could be administered as the same was not available. In cross-examination, the witness has stated that Rajender Bhadu was in a position to move. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the accused-appellant Rajender Bhadu was physically able to move freely, it is possible that he may have come out from the hospital at 6 A.M. and rushed to the scene of occurrence to commit murder of Sahab Ram. In our opinion, the statement of Sunil Kumar (DW 1) proves that the appellant Rajender Bhadu was admitted in the Government Hospital on 22.10.1991 at 8.55 P.M. On that day, he was administered an injection. On the next morning, that is, morning of 23.10.1991, he was present in the hospital at 6 A.M. when the male-nurse, went to him to administer the injection. On the next morning, that is, morning of 23.10.1991, he was present in the hospital at 6 A.M. when the male-nurse, went to him to administer the injection. Presence of Rajender Bhadu in the hospital upto 6 A.M. on 23.10.1991 is thus proved by the evidence of Sunil Kumar (DW 1). It is further proved by Sunil Kumar (DW 1) that Rajender Bhadu has been discharged from the hospital on 24.10.1991 at 11 A.M. and he was present in the hospital upto 6 A.M. Had it been a solo performance of the accused, probably it would have been possible to infer that Rajender Bhadu left the hospital after 6 A.M. on 24.10.1991 and rushed to the scene of occurrence and after giving fatal injury to Sahab Ram with the gun-fire, returned back to the hospital and no body noticed him during this period. In the instant case, the evidence made by Omi Devi (PW 5) is that Rajender Bhadu, Raghuveer Singh and Jagrup Singh Kamred and two other persons, together went to the place where Sahab Ram had gone to ease the call of nature. The occurrence took place at about 7.15 A.M. Keeping in view the distance of the hospital from the scene of the occurrence and all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to infer that within a short span of one hour, the accused Rajender Bhadu could, constitute an unlawful assembly consist-ing of five persons and returned to the hospital after committing murder of Sahab Ram. In our considered opinion, the defence evidence produced by Rajender Bhadu, makes it highly improbable that the accused appellant could have gone to the house of Sahab Ram with Raghuveer Singh, Jagrup Singh and two others after making preparation for committing murder and returned to the hospital after com-mitting the murder without being noticed by any one in the hospital while making exist and returned to the bed on which he was admitted. (24). For the reasons mentioned above, we find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27, Arms Act has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. (25). The appeal is, therefore, allowed. (24). For the reasons mentioned above, we find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27, Arms Act has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. (25). The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The appellant Rajender Bhadu is hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.