JUDGMENT A.S. Garg, J. - Krishan PW.6 is the real brother of Satbir alias Bale deceased. They had allegedly taken meals together on the night of 24.7.1996. Satbir after taking the meals departed from his brother and when he did not return home, Krishan PW.6 started searching for his brother Satbir and found the dead body in an uncultivated field in the area of village Bad Malik. He also found a deep cut below the right side of chin caused with a sharp-edged weapon. He then returned to the village and informed Heera and Ram Parkash. He left Heera and Ram Parkash near the dead body and went to inform the police. 2. SI Parkash Chand PW.10 along with other police officials was present at 20th Miles in connection with detection of crime. Krishan PW.6 met him there and he made a statement Ex.PG and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PG/2 was recorded at 7.15 P.M. on 25.7.1996. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 9.15 P.M. Sudhir Kumar PW.5, a photographer took photographs Exs. P4 to P6, the negatives of which are Exs. P7 to P9. The Investigating Officer then reached the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PN of the scene of occurrence. The said SI lifted blood-stained earth vide memo Ex.PH. He prepared inquest report Ex.PA/2 and sent the dead body for post mortem vide request Ex.PA/1. He also took into possession the clothes of the deceased after post mortem vide memo Ex.PC. 3. During further investigation of the case Udey Singh PW.7, revealed that on the night of 24.7.1996, around 11.00 P.M., he had seen the appellant Tara Chand and his father Raghbir Singh quarrelling with the deceased near a bridge near Pritampura Mor. He tried to save but ultimately Udey Singh returned to the village whereas the deceased and the appellant and his father went in another direction. It was also revealed further that Tara Chand made an extra judicial confession before Sukhbir Singh PW.8 that he had stabbed the deceased to death because there was a dispute over a match box between the deceased and the appellant-accused and that he had taken the knife of the deceased and stabbed him to death. On this information, the appellant Tara Chand was arrested on 31.7.1996 when he was produced by Sukhbir Singh PW.8. On 2.8.1996, the appellant was interrogated. On this information, the appellant Tara Chand was arrested on 31.7.1996 when he was produced by Sukhbir Singh PW.8. On 2.8.1996, the appellant was interrogated. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PJ, he got recovered knife Ex.P1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. 4. Dr. B.D. Chaudhary PW. 1 conducted autopsy on the delay body of the deceased on 26.7.1996 at 10.00 A.M. and found the following injuries :- (1) There was black eye on the left side with swelling of the left eye ball. (2) There were multiple contusions of various sizes present on right side of the neck, right fore arm and right leg and lower part of abdomen and chest right side. (3) There was cut wound of 7 cm x 3 cm on the right side of sub mandibular region. The wound was lying transversely. The probe could go upward and medially upto 6 cms. The muscles were exposed. The further exploration showed cut in the common carotid artery 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. (4) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the chest lower part. The wound was skin deep. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of cut wound, right sub-mendible region, injuring big vessel right common carotid artery. The injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex.PA is the coy of the post mortem report. 6. The clothes of the deceased, blood-stained earth and knife Ex.P1 was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per its report Ex.PF, the blood was detected on blood stained earth and clothes of the deceased whereas it could not be detected on the knife. 7. At the trial, the appellant took up the plea that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge believing the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the accused and the evidence of the extra judicial confession, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisoned for one year. 8. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisoned for one year. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Terminder Singh, has argued that Udey Singh PW.2 did not disclose that he had seen the deceased and the appellant quarreling on the night of 24.7.1996 nor did he disclose this fact on the next day i.e. 25.7.1996 despite the fact that he has admitted while appearing as PW.7 that he had come to know about the murder of the deceased. He further argued that having remained mum for so long, Udey Singh even did not disclose anything to the members of the family of the deceased when he himself was present on funeral ceremony. This argument in our view is clearly borne out on the testimony of Udey Singh PW.7 and he has himself admitted that he never uttered a word about the deceased having quarrelled with accused on the night of 24.7.1996. In due course and with natural human conduct, the witness must have disclosed on 25.7.1996 to the members of the family of the deceased or to the police or to some other person that he had seen the deceased and the accused together on the night of 24.7.1996. This would have been his natural reaction to the whole situation when he had concededly come to know that murder of the deceased had taken place on the night of 24.7.1996. Krishan PW.6 the real brother of the deceased has also not stated a word that Udey Singh told him that he had last seen the deceased and the accused together. So it is absolutely false and frivolous on the face of it that this witness Udey Singh ever saw Bale deceased and the accused quarrelling on the night of 24.7.1996. It was also being claimed that even there was some injuries on the person of appellant-accused but there is not medical evidence to show that any injury existed on the person of the appellant-accused. The testimony of Udey Singh is wholly unreliable. His conduct is wholly unnatural indicating that he is a witness introduced later on. 9. As regards the other limb of the evidence i.e. of extra judicial concession, it may be stated that Sukhbir Singh PW.8 is neither a Lambardar nor Panch nor a member of any society nor is well acquainted with the appellant-accused earlier. His conduct is wholly unnatural indicating that he is a witness introduced later on. 9. As regards the other limb of the evidence i.e. of extra judicial concession, it may be stated that Sukhbir Singh PW.8 is neither a Lambardar nor Panch nor a member of any society nor is well acquainted with the appellant-accused earlier. The appellant did not appear to have any reason or occasion to have approached a witness to make an extra judicial confession. We have minutely gone through the statement of Sukhbir Singh PW.8 and do not find any truthfulness in the statement of this witness and there appears no reason why the appellant could go to such a person who is totally unconcerned and has no business to get him any protection from the police. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority of the Apex Court in Manzoor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 295, wherein it was observed :- "We have the evidence of the timber merchant Sharif Ahmed (PW.11) about the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellants. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had any reason to take P.W.11 into confidence and believe that he could save them from the trouble after getting them arrested if they confessed their guilt to him. We are not impressed with the evidence of P.W.11 that the appellants made the extra judicial confession to him." 10. The learned counsel further relied upon another authority of the Apex Court in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1705, wherein disbelieving the evidence of extra judicial confession, it was observed that :- "Amrik Singh says that the appellant told him that as the police was after him, he had come and confessed the fact so that he might not be unnecessarily harassed. There is nothing to indicate that this Amrik Singh was a person having influence with the Police or a person of some status to protect the appellant from harassment. In his cross-examination he admits that he is neither the Lambardar or Sarpanch nor a person who is frequently visiting the Police. He further admits that when he produced the appellant there was a crowd of 10 to 12 persons. There is no other corroborative evidence about the extra judicial confession." 11. In his cross-examination he admits that he is neither the Lambardar or Sarpanch nor a person who is frequently visiting the Police. He further admits that when he produced the appellant there was a crowd of 10 to 12 persons. There is no other corroborative evidence about the extra judicial confession." 11. The learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, in our opinion has not been able to contradict the aforesaid arguments effectively. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant is not based on sufficient evidence. The benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appeal allowed.