Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. This judgment of mine will dispose of all the three Criminal Appeals bearing Crl. Appeal No. 146-SB of 1989 filed by Amrik Singh and Surjit Singh, Crl. Appeal No. 156-SB of 1989 filed by Darbara Singh and Jagir Singh and Crl. Appeal 165-SB of 1989 filed by Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh as all the six appellants have been convicted in the same FIR under Section 115 Part I read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 11.3.1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for six months each. However, the other two appeals filed by Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants challenging their conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act are being disposed of by a separate judgement. 2. The FIR was registered on 6.12.1986 on the statement of Balbir Singh- complainant (P.W.1) and the case of the prosecution is that on 30.9.1986, Balbir Singh-complainant was going to District Courts, Ferozepur in connection with his personal case. When he reached near Bus Stand Mamdot, Gurnam Singh, Lambardar met him and they both went to the Courts. They were talking with each other in the back side of the tea stall in the Court compound, Ferozepur. It is then alleged that appellant-Jagir Singh along with Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh-appellants came to the back side of the tea stall and started taking tea while sitting on the grass. While talking to each other, Jagir Singh said to Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh-appellants that Kala Singh and his two sons had been acquitted in a murder case in which his son Sucha Singh was murdered and he wants to get Kala Singh and his two sons killed and for that he was ready to spend a huge amount. Jagir Singh further told Amrik Singh that he would not be involved in the case being in Jail. It is then the case of prosecution that Surjit Singh and Amrik singh replied giving references to the relations of Amrik Singh namely Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants who could execute the job. Jagir Singh further told Amrik Singh that he would not be involved in the case being in Jail. It is then the case of prosecution that Surjit Singh and Amrik singh replied giving references to the relations of Amrik Singh namely Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants who could execute the job. On the basis of the statement of Balbir Singh, the present case was then registered by he police on 6.12.1986 under Sections 115/116/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to prosecution case, the policy party raided the tubewell of Jagir Singh-appellant on 8.12.1986 and arrested Baldev Singh, Amrik Singh, Surjit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Darbara Singh-appellants. On search, the police also allegedly recovered Rs. 20,000/- and a 312 bore pistol along with four cartridges from Baldev Singh, Rs. 1000/- and a 12 bore pistol along with three carriages from Jaswant Singh, Rs. 5000/- from Amrik Singh and Rs. 40,000/- from Surjit Singh. However, no recovery was effected from Darbara Singh. During investigation, a tractor bearing No. PUD 6558 was also taken into possession from the house of Surjit Singh by the police. 4. All the appellants were convicted of the charge framed against them by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, all these six appellants have preferred these three appeals. 5. I have heard Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate and Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. Shailender Malik, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab and perused the Trial Court record minutely. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that there is no evidence with the prosecution to attract the provisions of Section 115 IPC in this case. Advancing their arguments, it is submitted that there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR because according to the prosecution, Balbir Singh had over-heard Jagir Singh on 30.9.1986 talking to Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh in the Court compound while hatching a conspiracy to kill Kala Singh and his sons and during the talk, the names of Jaswant Singh and Baldev Singh had been mentioned as the persons who could execute the murder and there is no explanation, much less satisfactory, given by Balbir Singh, the so- called first informant for not informing the police for more than two months. According to appellants, this is sufficient to throw the case of the prosecution outrightly. Advancing their arguments, the learned counsel further submitted that on the other hand there is not an iota of evidence of any instigation to Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants who were to be engaged for the purpose of killing Kala Singh and his sons and that the case of the prosecution is suffering from many basic lacunae and thus all the appellants deserve acquittal. 7. On the other hand, refuting the arguments of the counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailender, Malik, Assistant Advocate-General for the State of Punjab strenuously argued that in such type of cases, there cannot be any direct evidence of conspiracy and that inferences have to be drawn from the circumstances of the case. It was further submitted by Mr. Malik that in this case Jagir Singh and Darbara Singh had a strong motive to murder Kala Singh and his sons in order to take revenge from them and for that Jagir Singh- appellant had hatched a conspiracy by spending a huge amount from his pocket. He further submitted that delay in this particular case should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution because from the circumstantial evidence, the case of the prosecution is proved on all the counts. 8. I am not convinced with the arguments advanced by Mr. Malik. On the contrary, I am in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the case set up by the prosecution suffers from inherent infirmities. 9. Firstly, there is a delay of more than 2 months in lodging the First Information Report. There is no explanation coming forth from Balbir Singh for the delay in reporting the matter to the police. In his statement on oath, he has stated that he over-heard Jagir Singh talking to Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh hatching the plans to murder Kala Singh and his sons and then he went to the police station where his statement was recorded. He does not say a word in explanation about the delay. The relevant portion of Examination-in-chief of Balbir Singh, P.W.1 is reproduced as under :- "P.W.1-Balbir Singh son of Sawan Singh son of Sulakhan Singh aged 50 years, Cultivator r/o Malsian on S.A. ... ..... He does not say a word in explanation about the delay. The relevant portion of Examination-in-chief of Balbir Singh, P.W.1 is reproduced as under :- "P.W.1-Balbir Singh son of Sawan Singh son of Sulakhan Singh aged 50 years, Cultivator r/o Malsian on S.A. ... ..... Jagir Singh asked Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh to suggest some persons by hiring them they could avenge the murder of Sucha Singh. Surjit Singh told that some relatives of Amrik Singh do such like work. Baldev Singh of P.S. Maout and Jaswant Singh resident of Village Satarian Walia are in possession of illicit arm and can do the job. Jagir Singh said there that he would spend huge amount for getting the job done and if case would be registered it will not affect it. Afterwards I went to the police station where my statement was recorded which is Exh. P.A. It was read over to me. I thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. Jagir Singh was ready to spend Rs. One lac to revenge the murder of Sucha Singh. xxx xxx" 10. The Statement of Balbir Singh (P.W.1) otherwise does not stand the test of reliability. He was confronted on many material points from his previous statement (Exhibit P.A.) inasmuch as that he did not know the parentage and addresses of Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh whereas the same where found mentioned in his statement Exhibit P.A. All this goes to show that the entire story was concocted by the complainant party in connivance with the police. 11. The prosecution in order to strengthen its case also relied upon the statement of Gurnam Singh (P.W.2) who is Lambardar of village Lohgarh and had come to District Courts, Ferozepur along with Balbir Singh. According to his statement, on 30.9.1986 Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh were talking to Jagir Singh and Jagir Singh was telling them that he was ready to spend huge amount in order to take revenge from Kala Singh and others and thereafter, he (Gurnam Singh) and Balbir singh went away from that place. The relevant portion of his Examination-in-Chief reads as under :- " P.W. 2-Gurnam Singh son of Bahal Singh son of Kesar Singh aged 53 years, Cultivatory r/o Lohgarh on S.A. ... I am Lambardar of my village. On 30.9.1986 I had come to the District Courts, Ferozepur alongwith Balbir Singh. The relevant portion of his Examination-in-Chief reads as under :- " P.W. 2-Gurnam Singh son of Bahal Singh son of Kesar Singh aged 53 years, Cultivatory r/o Lohgarh on S.A. ... I am Lambardar of my village. On 30.9.1986 I had come to the District Courts, Ferozepur alongwith Balbir Singh. We sat behind the back of Tea Stall in the Court compound and began to talk. Jagir Singh was in police custody was also sitting there along with his relatives, Surjit Singh and Amrik Singh and others. Jagir Singh said that Gurmej Singh, Nishan Singh and Kala Singh had been acquitted in murder case of his son and he wanted to revenge the murder of his son and was ready to spend huge amount. After that we went away from that place........" 12. From the above statement, it is clear that Gurnam Singh has not said a word that Jagir Singh-appellant had asked Surjit Singh-appellant to suggest some persons for the purpose of hiring to execute the murder and that thereafter Surjit Singh told that some relatives of Amrik Singh do such type of work and then he named Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants. This inherent contradiction in the statements of two material witnesses of over- hearing the accused regarding conspiracy being hatched in the Court Complex by Jagir Singh with Amrik Singh and Surjit Singh goes to the root of the case and falsifies the entire prosecution story. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no legal evidence worth the name to connect Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh even remotely with the offence punishable under Section 115 IPC, much less with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. These statements if scanned minutely, would leave no room of doubt to conclude that the case of the prosecution is on a slippery footing and calls for rejection in toto. 13. It would be relevant here to discuss the so-called apprehension of all the appellants except Jagir Singh (already in custody in another case). The story put forth by the Investigating Officer-SI. 13. It would be relevant here to discuss the so-called apprehension of all the appellants except Jagir Singh (already in custody in another case). The story put forth by the Investigating Officer-SI. Babu Singh (P.W. 7) to the effect that on 8.12.1986 he received a secret information that all the above- stated appellants except Jagir Singh were making consultations for committing the murder of Kala Singhs family and that he went to the tubewell of Jagir Singh and apprehended the five appellants along with the fire-arms allegedly recovered from Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh including the money allegedly in the possession of some appellants does not appeal to the judicial conscience. It, on the other hand, smacks of crude padding by the prosecution agency. Incidentally at the time of alleged arrest of the said appellants, Gurnam Singh-Nambardar who happened to be in the company of Balbir Singh in Court compound on 30.9.1986, joined SI Babu Ram for the purpose of raid also. This brings clouds of doubt over the prosecution story of 8.12.1986 and it can be very comfortably inferred that Gurnam Singh was the most convenient witness to be used by the police on different occasions. There is a plausible defence brought forward by five appellants so far as recovery of money or arms is concerned. Once the alleged apprehension on 8.12.1986 from the tubewell of Jagir Singh is not believed, the recovery of money allegedly made from Baldev Singh, Jaswant Singh and Amrik Singh would not advance the case of the prosecution. Similarly it can be safely inferred that the alleged recovery of fire arms from Baldev Singh and Jaswant Singh-appellants is also a crude padding by the prosecution agency to complete the chain. No other point has been argued. 14. For the reasons stated above, the above-mentioned three appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the trial court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. 15. It is, however, made clear that the cash amounts of Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 5000/-, and Rs. 1000/- which was allegedly recovered from Surjit Singh, Baldev Singh, Amrik Singh and Jaswant Singh respectively and was ordered to be confiscated to the State by impugned judgment be returned to them forthwith.