JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.1982 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of.the offence under section 307 IPC and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. five hundred and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under section 354 IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that Munshi Ram (PW I) lodged an FIR at Police Station, Padampur. on 3.8.1981 stating that on 29.7.1981 at about 9.30 p.m., he along with his wife were sleeping on separate cots and at that time, accused Fakir Chand, who resides near the house, came over there and caught the arm of his wife Mst. Rami, on which she made cries. He immediately stood up from the cot. Accused-Fakir Chand took out the knife and stabbed in his stomach, on account of which he fell down on the cot. Hearing their cries, Chandu Ram, Amar Chand & Kishan Lal reached on the spot and chased Fakir Chand unsuccessfully. On this information, police registered a case against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC and proceeded-with investigation. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced number of documents. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 3. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, it is contended by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that Mst. Rami has admitted the suggestion in the cross-examination that the accused's face was muffled with cloth. He further submits that it has also been admitted by all other witnesses that they have not seen the face of the accused. In view of this. the presence of the accused has become doubtful. 4. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Garg, I have scanned the prosecution evidence. PW 1 Munshi Ram has stated that he knew the accused-Fakir Chand little bit. He also stated that accused-Fakir Chand entered in his house and caught hold the arm of his wife. In view of this. the presence of the accused has become doubtful. 4. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Garg, I have scanned the prosecution evidence. PW 1 Munshi Ram has stated that he knew the accused-Fakir Chand little bit. He also stated that accused-Fakir Chand entered in his house and caught hold the arm of his wife. She made a cry on account of which he got up but he was stabbed be accused-Fakir Chand, In cross-examination, he has stated that the house of the accused-Fakir Chand is at a distance of 30 ft. He also stated that he had no enmity with the accused-Fakir Chand. PW 2 Mst. Rami has stated that she knew Fakir Chand for last more than ten months. She then narrated the incident as given in the FIR. In cross-examination, she has stated that distance between her house and Fakir Chand is 30 yards. She also admitted the suggestion that the face of Fakir Chand was muffled by cloth. PW 3 Amar Chand has stated that he knew Fakir Chand. He also stated that on hearing the cries of Mst. Rami, he reached on the spot. When he reached there, Fakir Chand was at a distance of 20-25 steps. He.could see the back of Fakir Chand. With respect to the suggestion as to whether the face of the accused was muffled with cloth or not, he stated that he did not see the face of the accused-Fakir Chand as to whether it was muffled or not. PW 4 Kishan Lal stated that he knew the accused-Fakir Chand present in the Court. He also stated that on hearing the cries of Mst. Rami, he reached on the spot and saw accused-Fakir Chand running with knife. In the cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that he could see only the back of accused-Fakir Chand. He also admitted the suggestion that he could not see the face of the accused. Thus excluding the evidence of PW 1 Munshi Ram and PW 2 Mst. Rami, for a moment, there is no satisfactory evidence to conclude that it was Fakir Chand-appellant, who was seen running from the house of Munshi Ram, Mst. Rami, PW 2 has admitted that the face of the accused-Fakir Chand was muffled with cloth. Munshi Ram and Mst. Rami were also not very closely known to Fakir Chand. Rami, for a moment, there is no satisfactory evidence to conclude that it was Fakir Chand-appellant, who was seen running from the house of Munshi Ram, Mst. Rami, PW 2 has admitted that the face of the accused-Fakir Chand was muffled with cloth. Munshi Ram and Mst. Rami were also not very closely known to Fakir Chand. Unfortunately, the learned Public Prosecutor did not make any effort either by way of re-examination or from the subsequent witnesses as to how they could identify Fakir Chand inspite of the fact that as stated by Mst. Rami the face of the accused was muffled with cloth. In absence of such evidence, it is difficult to say positively that it was the accused-Fakir Chand, who entered in the house and stabbed Munshi Ram. There is another piece of evidence, which could connect the accused-appellant with the crime i.e. the recovery of knife. The Investigating Officer, PW 7 Jagdish Prasad has said that a blood stained knife was recovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused-appellant. It is not in dispute that the knife was not sent to the Serologist to know whether it was stained by human blood. Thus, this piece of evidence also does not help the prosecution. This is of-course true that there may be lurking suspicion that it could be Fakir Chand, who entered in the house but this is not sufficient. Once Mst. Rami said that the accused was muffled with cloth, the prosecution ought to have taken care to show that the accused could be identified for other reasons as well. There is no such evidence. 5. In view of this, the identity as to the presence and participation of the appellant in crime, has not been proved by prosecution beyond doubt. In view of this, I am left with no option but to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 6.9.1982 convicting the appellant of the offences under sections 307 & 354 IPC is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said offences. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******