Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellant Hoshiyar Singh was inducted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, district Bharatpur, for having committed murder of Ramvir. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated April 19, 1995, convicted and sentenced him as under:- Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment. Under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act: two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against this judgment of conviction, that the appellant has resorted to initiate present action of filing the appeal. (2). Brief resume of the prosecution is that P.W. 4 Sodan Singh, lodged a written report Ex.P.6 with the Police Station, Deeg, on July 4, 1992, stating therein that around 5.00 a.m. on July 4, 1992, he had seen the people rushing towards his field. He also rushed to his field, where he found the dead body of his brother Ramvir lying on a cot. The blood was oozing from the left ear and he saw his sons Jadvir and Prahlad weeping. On being enquired, Jadvir told him that he and his uncle Ramvir were sleeping together on a cot. He suddenly woke-up after hearing the sound of fire. Hoshiyar Singh having Katta (Indian made gun) in his hand, was standing by the side of the cot alongwith three unknown persons. (3). Police Station, Deeg, registered a case u/Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and investigation commenced. Statement of witnesses u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Autopsy on the dead body of Ramvir was conducted. Appellant was arrested. Katta 12 bore was recovered at his instance. It was examined by armorer and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Deeg. Charges u/Sec. 302 IPC and 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act were framed and read over to the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited as many as 16 documents. In his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded innocence and deposed that he was falsely implicated by the complainant party. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited as many as 16 documents. In his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded innocence and deposed that he was falsely implicated by the complainant party. He further stated that Babu Lal and Others involved him in an abduction case in which the police submitted final report. During confinement, his mother instituted a complaint against the witnesses, who deposed falsely against him and because of this enmity, he was involved in another case of murder. On hearing the final submissions, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. (4). Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there is no eye witness of the incident and Jadvir P.W. 1 woke-up after hearing the sound of fire. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who used the fire-arm and caused injury on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that no blood was found on the clothes of P.W. 1, who was allegedly sleeping at the time of incident by the side of the deceased on the cot. It is futher urged by learned counsel that G.P. Gupta, P.W. 13 in his deposition categorically stated that he had sent pallets/bullets found in the body of the deceased to the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer did not think it proper to get the bullets/pallets examined by Ballistic Experts. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the Katta, alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant with the pallets/bullets found in the body of the deceased. Learned Counsel further canvassed that the injuries sustained by the deceased demonstrates that the same could not be caused by one fire thus the prosecution story has become doubtful and the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence of murder of Ramvir. Learned counsel placed reliance on Tahsildar Singh vs. State (1), Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab (2) and Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab (3). (5). Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge and contended that Jadvir P.W. 1 is a truthful witness and his testimony deserves to be accepted. (5). Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge and contended that Jadvir P.W. 1 is a truthful witness and his testimony deserves to be accepted. It is further contended by learned Public Prosecutor that report of Armorer, establishes that the Katta recovered at the instance of appellant was serviceable fire-arm and even if the pallets/bullets were not sent to the ballistic experts, the appellant is not entitled to derive any advantage from it. The prosecution case was established beyond reasonable doubt as the appellant was rightly convicted. (6). With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have closely scanned the material on record. Jadvir, P.W. 1 is the main witness of the prosecution and he categorically stated that he was sleeping on a cot alongwith deceased Ramvir. He suddenly woke-up hearing the sound of fire. He found Hoshiyar standing by his cot armed with Katta. He had seen smoke coming out from the barrel of Katta. He had seen smoke coming out from the barrel of Katta. Three persons were also standing by the side of his cot. When he made hue and cry, Hoshiyar scolded him and asked him to keep mum. Thereafter all the four fled. The age of jadvir at the time of examination before the trial court was eleven years. (7). Prahlad, P.W. 2, elder brother of P.W. 1, deposed that he had seen Hoshiyar and three other persons running from the field. At that time, Hoshiyar Singh was having Katta in his hand. When he attempted to follow them, Hoshiyar threatened him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had only seen the back of Hoshiyar and he did not recognize Hoshiyar at his first site. (8). Sheodan P.W. 4, stated that he instituted written report with the police station on the basis of information received from his son. Bhonhra P.W. 6 is the motbir of the inquest report, and recovery memos of clothes of the deceased, blood stained ``goodari, which was lying on the cot at the time of incident and of Katta. Raghunath P.W. 7 is also motbir of inquest report. In his deposition, he stated that he had heard sound of fire. Har Kishan P.W. 8 is also a motbir of recovery memo of Katta. Raghunath P.W. 7 is also motbir of inquest report. In his deposition, he stated that he had heard sound of fire. Har Kishan P.W. 8 is also a motbir of recovery memo of Katta. Member Singh P.W. 9 is a Constable, who handed over four sealed packets to F.S.L. Harish Chandra, P.W. 10 is an Armorer. He deposed that Katta was a serviceable fire arm. Babu Lal P.W. 11 in his deposition stated that relations of Hoshiyar and Ramvir were inimical. Dr. G.P. Gupta, P.W. 13, conducted Post-mortem on the body of deceased and according to him deceased Ramvir sustained following ante-mortem- injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound with margins inverted 1.4.x1.2 cm. oval, over 1t. ear blackening and tatooing around wound in a area of 4.5x4 cm was present. 2. Lacerated wound 2.0 x 1.5 cm. with margins everted on right side neck 3 cm below posterior hair line blood was oozing from wound a probe could be passed from injury no. 1 to injury no. 2 across. The front of the verticular of the neck region. 3. Lacerated wound 2.5. x 1.2 cm rt. shoulder superior surface medial side near neck margins inverted. 4. Abrasions 2 in number 0.5x0.5 cm x 1 cm on rt. side back 3 cm inside and above rt. auxiliary parts. (9). In his cross-examination Dr. G.P. Gupta stated that he was unable to say that injury no. 4 was caused by fire-arm or the injury No. 4 was the exit wound of injury No. 3. He further stated that he found pallets/bullets in the body of the deceased but he did not count them. He sealed the pallets in a bottle and forwarded it alongwith post-mortem-report to S.H.O. Anand Prakash, P.W. 14 conducted investigation of the case. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not send Katta for examination to the ballistic expert but it was examined by Armorer. He also did not send the clothes of the deceased and the pallets or pieces of bullets for ballistic opinion as before he formed his opinion, he was transferred, therefore, he could not say as to whether any ballistic opinion was sought or not. He further deposed that only expert could say as to whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were the result of single shot or more shots. (10). He further deposed that only expert could say as to whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were the result of single shot or more shots. (10). It appears from the prosecution evidence that a Katta 12 bore Indian made, examined by the Armorer Harish Chandra Sharma, vide its report Ex.P.11 was a serviceable fire arm. The said fire-arm was recovered from a shrub, an open place approachable to all, after sixteen days of the occurrence. It is also borne out from the record that the pallets recovered from the dead body of Ramvir were sealed in a bottle and handed-over to the Investigating Officer but he did not send them for examination to the ballistic experts. Although it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the pallets recovered from the dead body of Ramvir were shot from the same fire arm which was allegedly used in commission of offence. (11). Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) indicated in para 20 thus:- ``It hardly needs to be emphasized that in cases where injuries are caused by fire-arms, the opinion of the Ballistic Expert is of a considerable importance where both the fire-arm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial Court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent. (12). In Datar Singh vs. The State of Punjab (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that it is often difficult for courts of law to arrive at the real truth in criminal cases. The judicial process can only operate on the firm foundations of actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances, cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of Justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of patricide. They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidence of it on record. Courts of Justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of patricide. They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidence of it on record. If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rest its case are so brittle that they crumble when subjected to close and critical examination so that the whole superstructure built on such insecure foundations collapses, proof of some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to merely defective evidence cannot avert a failure of the prosecution case. (13). Having considered the prosecution evidence, we find following factual situation:- (1) There is no eye-witness of the occurrence; (2) Jadvir was ten years of age at the time of occurrence and was thickly related to the deceased. Although he was sleeping on the cot by the side of the deceased at the time of incident yet no blood was found on his clothes. (3) There was enmity between the complainant party and the appellant and the appellant was falsely detained in custody for a period of three months in an abduction case at the behest of the complainant party. (4) From the testimony of Dr. Gupta, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, it could not be established whether the injuries sustained by deceased were caused by one shot or more shots. (5) No opinion of ballistic expert in regard to fire arm as well as pellets or the bullets was sought. F.S.L. report was also not placed on the record. (14). In view of the above facts we find that the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rests its case are so brittle that they crumble when subjected to close and critical examination. We do not adjudge the testimony of Jadvir P.W. 1 as credible. How is it possible that clothes of the boy, who was sleeping on the cot with the deceased at the time of the incident remained clean throughout and not even a single drop of blood of the deceased could touch them. Jadvir is a near relative of the deceased and we find his presence at the time of incident most unnatural. Jadvir is a near relative of the deceased and we find his presence at the time of incident most unnatural. In our considered opinion the superstructure of the prosecution case is built on entirely insecure foundation and we have no other option except to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. Learned trial court, has not properly analyzed the factual and legal aspect of the matter and committed illegality in convicting the appellant. (15). In view of what we have discussed here-in-above, we allow the appeal of the appellant and set-aside his conviction u/Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. as well as Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (16). Learned counsel, Mr. Biri Singh contends that the accused appellant is in Central Jail, Bharatpur. Release order may be sent to the Central Jail, Bharatpur.