Judgment 1. State of Haryana has filed present appeal against the judgment dated 25.2.1992 acquitting respondents herein under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a case arising out of FIR No. 283 dated 23.5.1991. 2. The accused Jagavtar Singh and Balwan Singh were put to trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of having committed murder in furtherance of their common intention the death of Amrik Singh, son of Randhir Singh on 22.5.1991 at about 9.00 p.m. 3. The prosecution process was set in motion on the basis of a complaint lodged by Balbir Singh son of Surjan Singh. It was stated by him that he was present at the house of his employer Pritam Singh in Sant Nagar locality at Jind when Jagavtar Singh alias Pappu requested him to accompany him to his house for assisting him in cooking a chicken for him. Balbir Singh accompanied him to his house where a young boy was already sitting. After 10-15 minutes of his reaching there, Amrik Singh son of Randhir Singh came from the side of power house and was passing in front of house of Pappu. Pappu invited Amrik Singh to come inside the house. Amrik Singh came in and Pappu asked him to take liquor. Amrik Singh did not oblige him and an altercation took place between Amrik Singh and Pappu. Pappu started abusing Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh also paid him in the same coin. In retaliation, Pappu caught hold of Amrik Singh and asked his friend to teach a lesson to Amrik Singh for-hurling abuses. He had hardly said so when friend of Pappu picked up a knife and gave three knife blows which landed in the abdomen of Amrik Singh towards the left side. Amrik Singh raised an alarm "marditta mar ditta" Sh. Subhash Chander, son of Hakumat Rai resident of Patiala Chowk, Jind rushed to the spot and then Subhash Chander and Balbir Singh rescued Amrik Singh and informed the members of the family. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was recorded at 1.05 a.m. under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.5.1991 and special report was sent to the Magistrate, at 4.40 p.m. However, on receipt of information regarding the death of Amrik Singh, offence of case was converted to Section 302/34 IPC. 5. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was recorded at 1.05 a.m. under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.5.1991 and special report was sent to the Magistrate, at 4.40 p.m. However, on receipt of information regarding the death of Amrik Singh, offence of case was converted to Section 302/34 IPC. 5. In fact, Amrik Singh was moved to hospital but doctors did not declare him fit to make statement. However, his medico-legal examination was conducted by Dr. V.P. Kakkar on 22.5.1991 at 11.00 p.m. ASI Dharam Singh conducted spot inspection in the morning on 23.5.1991 and lifted blood smeared earth and recorded the statement of Subhash Chander, witness. 6. On completion of investigation, after getting the sample analysed from Forensic Science Laboratory, accused were challenged. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses including PW3-Balbir Singh and PW4 Subhash Chander, the eye- witnesses. After conclusion of evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. Jagavtar Singh accused said that he had dispute with Harminder brother of Amrik Singh and that the entire version is concocted to foist false charge against him. 7. The trial Court after considering the statements of witnesses found that the very genesis of occurrence of cooking chicken is distinctly weak as no traces of blood or feathers of the chicken were found lying nor cooking material or raw or cooked chicken was found lying in room. The trial Court also found that the FIR was lodged with delay. Even though the information of injured lying admitted in the hospital was received by ASI Dharam Singh at about 9.45 p.m., a special report was presented to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4.40 p.m. on 23.5.1991. The trial Court returned finding that the occurrence was never witnessed by Balbir Singh or Subhash Chander and their presence at the relevant time was not natural. After discussing evidence in detail finding was returned that both these witnesses have been introduced by the prosecution. The trial Court also found that in such like cases depending on direct evidence, not much importance can be given to motive but found that there was no history of hostility between victim and accused. 8. After discussing evidence in detail finding was returned that both these witnesses have been introduced by the prosecution. The trial Court also found that in such like cases depending on direct evidence, not much importance can be given to motive but found that there was no history of hostility between victim and accused. 8. After considering the various other aspects including nature of investigation and medical evidence, recovery of incriminating articles and result of scientific investigation, the trial Court returned a finding that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of either of the accused and consequently, both the accused were acquitted. 9. We have heard Shri D.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana and Sh. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, for the respondents and with their assistance gone through the record of the case. We are of the opinion that no case for interference in the present appeal is made out. 10. The process of law was set in motion in the statement of Balbir Singh. However, said Balbir Singh has been named a friend of Pappu who is purported to have given fatal knife blow to deceased, Amrik Singh. The story given by Balbir Singh who has gone to the house of Jagavtar Singh, i.e. for cooking of chicken, lacks credibility. No attempt has been made to prove any evidence of cooking of chicken. Balbir Singh has gone, to the house of Jagavtar Singh allegedly for cooking of chicken without permission of his employer at 9.00 p.m. It has not been explained why Jagavtar Singh would seek assistance of Balbir Singh for cooking of chicken. The presence of Balbir Singh at that house of Jagatvar Singh does not inspire confidence. Even the statement of Subhash Chander PW-4 cannot be relied upon as he has stated the knife blow had been inflicted to Amrik Singh before he entered the house. It is admitted by Subhash Chander that he and deceased Amrik Singh had taken meals at 8.00 p.m. although he states that at 9.30 p.m., he proceeded towards his fields and passing from the side of house of Pappu, he heard some cries. It is admitted by Subhash Chander that he and deceased Amrik Singh had taken meals at 8.00 p.m. although he states that at 9.30 p.m., he proceeded towards his fields and passing from the side of house of Pappu, he heard some cries. The explanation furnished by him for his presence at the house of accused cannot be accepted as Amrik Singh was at the house of Pappu at around 9.00 p.m. keeping in view the proximity of the house of Subhash Chander it is unbelievable that Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander would leave the house separately. Subhash Chander not accompanied Amrik Singh to hospital, even though he is stated to be a very good friend of Amrik Singh which is not a natural human conduct especially when Balbir Singh has gone to inform Mahinder Singh, brother of deceased Amrik Singh about the occurrence. Thus leaving Amrik Singh unattended. The prosecution has not associated any persons from neighborhood even though the place of occurrence is a residential locality. Persons from neighborhood namely Tara Chand and Karnail Singh were available but were not associated by the prosecution during investigation. 11. That even medical evidence does not support the prosecution. Keeping in view the nature and description of the injuries, the same could not be possibly caused by weapon like knife claimed to have been used as weapon of offence. PW-1 Dr. V.P. Kakkar, who medico-legally examined the injured, has stated that margins of all the wounds were clean cut and injury inflicted by an instrument having cutting edge or even the blunt edge produces a wound showing certain amount of bruising and ruggedness on one end. All the wounds in this case have clean cut margins with elliptical shape tapering ends which are normally produced by weapon having both edges sharped cutting knife. Weapon Ex. P2 has only one sharp cutting edge. Confronted Dr. Kakkar stated that these types of wounds can be produced in soft part like abdomen even by a weapon having only one sharp edged. However, such opinion of doctor is not supported by medical jurisprudence. 12. Keeping in view the evidence on record as discussed threadbare by the trial Court, we do not find any reasons to differ with the finding recorded by the trial Court. However, such opinion of doctor is not supported by medical jurisprudence. 12. Keeping in view the evidence on record as discussed threadbare by the trial Court, we do not find any reasons to differ with the finding recorded by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court is the possible view in law and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to bring. guilt home is affirmed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed