Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under :- The petitioner Raj alias Hukam Chand alongwith two others Balwant Singh and Suresh Chander was involved in a murder committed on 4.11.1984. An FIR was lodged on 5.11.1984 by Rulia Ram (PW-13), the grandfather of the deceased, Hari Ram. The three accused were arrested and at the time of filing of the challan, it transpired that as the petitioner was below 16 years of age. He was to be tried by the Childrens Court. His matter was, therefore, separated from the trial of the other accused. In the meanwhile, accused Balwant Singh and Suresh Chander were convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. They filed criminal appeal No. 304-DB of 1985 in this Court, which was allowed on 26.5.1986 and they were ordered to be acquitted. On the acquittal of his co-accused, the petitioner filed an application, Annexure P-6, on 10.6.1992 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking his discharge but the application was dismissed. The present petition has thereafter been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings against him to should be dropped in view of the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal. 2 On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the State, in which it has been pleaded that it was appropriate in the circumstances that the matter should be left for consideration to the trial Judge, who would examine the matter in the light of the findings recorded in the criminal appeal. The fact that the judgment in appeal has attained finality has not been disputed. 3. It is true that the matter can be left for consideration before the trial Court but in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been facing proceedings since 1984 when he was yet a child and his co-accused having been acquitted by the High Court on a consideration of the merits of the evidence, it would be wholly unfair to drag this matter any further. The findings of the Division Bench of this Court in appeal are very categoric and clear and I sum up the findings as under :- "Jaswant PW-14 admitted in his cross-examination that the police came to Jagadhri hospital when Hari Ram was still there and the police had recorded his statement and that of Dharam Pal. Those statements have not been produced in Court and we do not know what did they contain. As a matter of fact any one of those statements was the first information report in the case and not the one which was recorded on the basis of the statement of Rulia Ram PW-13. The first version of the case which was given by Jaswant PW-14 and Dharam Pal has been with held by the prosecution. In the face of it there cannot be any guarantee about the genuineness of the prosecution case against the accused. The daily diary report vide which the first information report was registered at the police station does not contain the names of the eye witnesses. This again is a pointer to the fact that by the time the daily diary report was recorded at the Police Station showing the registration of the case, the police and the witnesses had not yet decided about the personnel of the eye witnesses. In view of these circumstances the testimony of the eye witnesses is not creditworthy and their version cannot be relied upon. In such a situation the prosecution is required to provide independent corroboration to the eye witness account. Sadhu Ram PW, according the prosecution, was present at the dera of Rulia Ram PW-13 and accompanied him to the place of the assault. Dharam Pal was watering the land with Jaswant PW-14. Sadhu Ram and Dharam Pal have not been examined at the trial. Sadhu Ram was the only independent person who could lend corroboration to the testimony of the eye witnesses. In the absence of his production at the trial, the independent corroboration which the prosecution was required to furnish is lacking. For the foregoing reasons, the eye witness account is unreliable and it appears that they did not witness the occurrence and have come forward to depose against the accused only because of their relationship with the deceased. Holding as such, we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused." 3. For the foregoing reasons, the eye witness account is unreliable and it appears that they did not witness the occurrence and have come forward to depose against the accused only because of their relationship with the deceased. Holding as such, we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused." 3. I am of the opinion that in the light of these observations, no conviction against the petitioner can possibly be recorded as the evidence against him as also his co-accused was identical. 4. This petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Petition allowed.