Judgment – (Delivered by Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J.) Both the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of the one and same judgment and the facts and evidence are common therefore, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2001 (Old No. 2150/1983) shall be the leading case. 2. At the time of hearing of argument of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi (in Appeal No. 1147 of 2001) have been died during the pendency of appeal. In this regard, a report was called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, who sent his report dated 03-12-2004 about the death of the above named appellants. It reveals from the said report that the appellants Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi have been died during the pendency of appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed as abated on their behalf. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Sri Harish Chandra Singh, since deceased, who was son of the accused Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi was employed in the Army. After his death a litigation started between these two accused Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi on the one hand and Smt. Munni Devi, the widow of Sri Harish Chandra Singh, since deceased, on the other in respect of Rs. 50,000/- of the deceased in respect of Group Insurance and other schemes with the Army authorities, which were to be released in favour of the nominee of Sri Harish Chandra Singh, if any, and on account of these litigations in between them the relations had got strained. Smt. Munni (deceased) was living with her father Sri Kripal Singh (deceased) in village Kangsali, Patti Raika, District Tehri Garhwal, on account of the ill-treatment of her by her relations-in-law. 4. On 26-9-1982 at 5.30 P.M. Smt. Munni Devi accompanied by her father Sri Kripal Singh left her village Kangsali for Civil Courts, Tehri where date was fixed for hearing in the case regarding succession certificate but they did not reach Tehri on 27-9-1982. 4. On 26-9-1982 at 5.30 P.M. Smt. Munni Devi accompanied by her father Sri Kripal Singh left her village Kangsali for Civil Courts, Tehri where date was fixed for hearing in the case regarding succession certificate but they did not reach Tehri on 27-9-1982. On 28-9-1982, Gopal Singh S/o Lalit Singh of village- Kangsali, who was nephew of Kripal Singh lodged a written report at Patwari Chowki Raulakot, Patti-Raika, District-Tehri Garhwal about the disappearance of the deceased aforesaid naming the accused Gyan Singh, the elder brother of the husband of Smt. Munni Devi (deceased) alone therein on suspicion. Accused Gyan Singh was the relation-in-law of Smt. Munni Devi as the person who might have murdered Smt. Munni Devi and her father Kripal Singh on account of enmity arising out of the litigations which were going on for the past two years between Munni Devi (deceased) and Smt. Shakha Devi mother of Gyan Singh (accused). 5. On the basis of the said written report only an entry was made about disappearance of both Smt. Munni Devi and Sri Kripal Singh and a chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-1) was prepared at Patwari Chowki-Raulakot aforesaid on 28-9-1982 at 7.00 P.M. and a case was registered against the accused Gyan Singh, Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi alone under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the I.P.C. when the complicity of Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi was also known in the meanwhile and dead bodies of Munni Devi and Kripal Singh were also recovered. 6. After the entry in the general diary on the basis of written report (Ext.Ka-1) about the disappearance of both Smt. Munni Devi and Kripal Singh, the Investigating Officer went in search of Gyan Singh to Suman Colony; Tehri but he was not traceable there. Thereafter a search was made for both Smt. Munni Devi and her father Kripal Singh. During the course of the searches aforesaid the Investigating Officer accompanied by the informant and others reached 'Paligad Tok' and found some marks of dragging someone on the ground. 'Paligad Tok' aforesaid fell on the way from Kangsali to Tehri. After going a little ahead they found the dead bodies of Munni Devi and Sri Kripal Singh lying on the ground in a precipice and they all recognised the said dead bodies to be of Munni Devi and her father Kripal Singh. 7. 'Paligad Tok' aforesaid fell on the way from Kangsali to Tehri. After going a little ahead they found the dead bodies of Munni Devi and Sri Kripal Singh lying on the ground in a precipice and they all recognised the said dead bodies to be of Munni Devi and her father Kripal Singh. 7. The dead bodies, were brought by the Investigating Officer with the help of others upward on the road and the inquest report and other necessary papers were prepared. The dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. Dr. R.B. Singh (P.W.2) conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Munni Devi and her father Kripal Singh and prepared the report Exts.Ka-2 and Ka-3 respectively. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of' Smt. Munni Devi :- 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x scalp deep' on the anterior part of head, 9 cm. above the bridge of nose. Oblique. 2. Multiple contusions in an area of 10 cms. x 6 cms. on the aforesaid varying in size from 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. to 3 cms. x 1 cm. in various directions. 3. Upper central and lateral incisor teeth on left side found missing from their sockets. Gum margins lacerated. 4. Multiple contusions in an area of 20 cms. x 15 cms. on the front of chest, extending on both breasts, each varying in size from 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. to 4 cms. x 3 cms. in various directions. 5. Lacerated wound 3 cms. x 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. (muscle deep) on the anus at 6 o'clock position. Vertical in midline. In the opinion of doctor, the death of Smt. Munni Devi was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries described as above. 8. The doctor also found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of Sri Kripal Singh 1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cms. x 1 cm. x right side of upper lip 1 cm. away from midline. Oblique. 2. Multiple contusions in an area of 15 cms. x 10 cms. on the anterior part of head, forehead, varying in size from 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. to 2 cms. x 1 cm. in various directions. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the outer angle of right eye. Oblique. 4. Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. X• V2 cm. x 10 cms. on the anterior part of head, forehead, varying in size from 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. to 2 cms. x 1 cm. in various directions. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the outer angle of right eye. Oblique. 4. Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. X• V2 cm. x skin deep on the inner angle of left eye. Oblique. 5. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 30 cms. x 20 cms. on the back of chest varying in size from 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 5 cm. x 3 cm. in various directions. 6. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 16 cms. x 10 cms. on the front of chest upper part, varying in size from 2.5 cms. x 1 cm. to 5 cms. x 2 cms. in various directions. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of Sri Kripal Singh was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries described above. 9. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded statement of informant Gopal Singh on the same day. On 29.9.1982 he examined other witnesses, when the complicity of Dharam Singh S/o Joga Singh, Joga Singh and Dharam Singh S/o Ramsaran, Bhagwan Singh and Smt. Sita Devi also came to light and a case was registered against them in the relevant general diary. 10. On 30-9-1982 accused Gyan Singh, Dharam Singh, Joga Singh and Dharam Singh S/o Joga Singh were arrested by the Investigating Officer and on the pointing out of Joga Singh, he recovered blood stained pant and a jacket which were belonged to accused Gyan Singh in presence of the witnesses and prepared their recovery memo. On 13-10-1982, the Investigating Officer arrested accused Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi. On 6-11-1982 he got a witness, Chhota Singh examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on his report. After completing all the formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on 29-11-1982 against the accused Gyan Singh, Narain Singh, Smt. Shakha Devi, Dharam Singh S/o Ramsaran, Joga Singh, Dharam Singh S/o Joga Singh and Smt. Sita Devi. Accused Bhagwan Singh had been died before the submission of the chargesheet. 11. After completing all the formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on 29-11-1982 against the accused Gyan Singh, Narain Singh, Smt. Shakha Devi, Dharam Singh S/o Ramsaran, Joga Singh, Dharam Singh S/o Joga Singh and Smt. Sita Devi. Accused Bhagwan Singh had been died before the submission of the chargesheet. 11. After submission of the chargesheet the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge Tehri Garhwal on 03.6.1983 discharged the accused Dharam Singh 5/0 Ramsaran and Joga Singh on the ground that sufficient evidence to make out any case against them under any of the sections of the Indian Penal Code was not on record and finding a prima facie case made out against the remaining five accused persons under Secs. 302 I.P.C. simpliciter, 302 read with 34 & 201 I.P.C. against accused Gyan Singh; under Sec. 120-B I.P.C. only against accused Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi; under Sec. 302 read with 34 I.P.C. on two counts and under Sec. 201 I.P.C. against accused Dharam Singh and under Sec. 201 I.P.C. only against accused Smt. Sita Devi who pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial respectively. 12. The prosecution in order to bring the guilt of the accused persons to home examined P.W.1 Gopal Singh - the informant of this case, P.W.2 Dr. R.B. Singh, who conducted the post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Smt. Munni Devi and Sri Kripal Singh, P.W.3 Chhota Singh-the only alleged eye witness of the occurrence, P.WA Sain Singh, P.W.S Jot Singh, P.W.6 Gambhir Singh, P.W.7 Kirti Singh, P.W.8 Bhola, P.W.9 Satya Prasad- the Patwari, who was the Investigating Officer of this case, P.W.10 Sri V.D. Saklani Advocate, who had filed the succession certificate application on behalf of Smt. Shakha Devi accused and against Smt. Munni Devi (deceased), P.W.11 Rameshwar Prasad- a petition writer, who had prepared the original application of witness Chhota Singh dated 26-3-1983 (Ext.Ka-4) and P.W.12 Umed Singh. 13. Out of the statements of aforementioned twelve prosecution witnesses, the statements of P.W.2 Dr. R.B. Singh, P.W.9 Satya Prasad- the Investigating Officer, P.W.10 Sri V.D. Saklani Advocate and P.W.11 Sri Rameshwar Prasad- Petition Writer were formal in nature. The statements of remaining prosecution witnesses named above were on facts, either circumstantial or otherwise and also about recovery of articles and motive part of the prosecution story. R.B. Singh, P.W.9 Satya Prasad- the Investigating Officer, P.W.10 Sri V.D. Saklani Advocate and P.W.11 Sri Rameshwar Prasad- Petition Writer were formal in nature. The statements of remaining prosecution witnesses named above were on facts, either circumstantial or otherwise and also about recovery of articles and motive part of the prosecution story. The prosecution apart of the oral evidence, produced some documentary evidence also. 14. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They all pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. The accused Gyan Singh further stated that litigations were going on in between Smt. Shakha Devi and Smt. Munni Devi but he did not know when Smt. Munni Devi or Sri Kripal Singh (both deceased) had started from their village or Tehri or whether they reached Tehri or not on 26-9-1982 or what happened to them. He also stated that it was correct to say that his brother Harish Chandra Singh died while he was in military service but stated further that the nomination in respect of his Group Insurance amount was in favour of their mother (Smt. Shakha Devi accused) and all the papers were prepared for getting the same paid to Smt. Shakha Devi aforesaid and even the certificate was filed in Court. He further stated that Chhota Singh (P.W.3) had enticed away his aunt prior to the present occurrence and because of that very enmity he was deposing against him and this Chhota Singh was also an ex-convict was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 380 I.P.C. by the Court of S.D.M. Pyrola (District Uttarkashi). He also stated that Chhota Singh aforesaid was presently residing in Gram Dob, Patti-Raikadhar and formerly he resided in Village- Sagna, Patti Dharmandal and he was a professional witness. 15. The accused in support of their defence examined D.W.l Mohan Singh Bisht-Chief Head Warden, District Jail, Tehri, D. W.2 Suryamani Bhadri, an Advocate practicing in Civil Courts at Tehri, who had prepared the affidavit purporting to be on behalf of Chhota Singh (P.W.3) on 16-3-1983 on his instructions and D.W.3 Rajendra Datt Khanduri, the then Oath Commissioner; Civil Court, Tehri who had verified the aforesaid affidavit of Chhota Singh on 17-3-1983. The accused also produced certain documentary evidence in their defence. 16. The accused also produced certain documentary evidence in their defence. 16. The learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal after having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the accused in defence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties acquitted accused Smt. Sita Devi of the charge under Sec. 201 I.P.C. and convicted the accused/appellants Gyan Singh, Narain Singh, Smt. Shakha Devi and Dharam Singh. The accused/appellant Gyan Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 simpliciter and Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 201 I.P.C. The accused/appellants Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi each were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sec. 120-B of the I.P.C. Accused/appellant Dharam Singh was convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. on two counts and Sec. 201 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. each on both the counts and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 201 I.P.C., vide judgment and order dated 20-8-1983 in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 1983. 17. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order, the convicted Gyan Singh, Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi filed appeal bearing No. 2150 of 1983 and convicted Dharam Singh S/o Joga Singh filed separate appeal bearing No. 2050 of 1983 before the High Court, Allahabad which have been transferred to this Court after creation of the new State. 18. We have heard Sri• Rajendra Kotiyal Advocate on behalf of appellant Gyan Singh, Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate on behalf of appellant Dharam Singh and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material on record. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused/appellant Narain Singh and Smt. Shakha Devi have died during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal is therefore abated against them. However, the appeal No. 1147 of 2001 pertaining to appellant Gyan Singh as well as Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2001 pertaining to accused Dharam Singh are surviving and the same are being disposed of by way of this judgment. 20. The appeal is therefore abated against them. However, the appeal No. 1147 of 2001 pertaining to appellant Gyan Singh as well as Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2001 pertaining to accused Dharam Singh are surviving and the same are being disposed of by way of this judgment. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has first of all argued that the time of lodging the First Information Report before the Patwari as has been alleged by the prosecution appears to be quite doubtful in view of the statement of P.W.1, Gopal Singh, informant as well as P.W.9, Satya Prasad, Investigating Officer. 21. As per the deposition of P. W.1, it appears that on 28-09-1982, he went to the Patwari Chowki and there he lodged the report pertaining to the fact that Munni Devi & Kripal Singh were missing. This witness has stated that Munni Devi & Kripal Singh had gone to Tehri but they did not come back up to the evening of 27th of September, 1982. Thereafter, he made search of these two persons and on 28th September, 1982, tie lodged the missing report before the Patwari. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he orally told the Patwari about the missing of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh but Patwari asked him to get the report in writing. Therefore, he got the report scribed by one Gambhir Singh and lodged the report to the Patwari. 22. In this context, if the deposition of P.W.9 Satya Prasad, Investigating Officer is taken into account, then it appears that he deposed that Gopal Singh came to him on 28-09-1982 at 8:00 a.m. and Gambhir Singh and Kriti Singh were also in his company. This witness' has stated that Gopal Singh did not tell him orally about the missing of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh. He has also stated that he does not know as to where Gopal Singh got the written report scribed. 23. The perusal of the deposition of these two witnesses nowhere indicates that First Information Report lodged by Gopal Singh about the missing of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh was not lodged on 28-09-1982 at 8:00 a.m. 24. He has also stated that he does not know as to where Gopal Singh got the written report scribed. 23. The perusal of the deposition of these two witnesses nowhere indicates that First Information Report lodged by Gopal Singh about the missing of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh was not lodged on 28-09-1982 at 8:00 a.m. 24. It appears from the record that subsequently after the aforesaid missing report, the Patwari started making search about the Munni Devi & Kripal Singh and in the afternoon of the same day, he could trace out the dead bodies of aforesaid two persons. The Inquest Report on the body of the deceased also shows that the Patwari could complete the same on 28-09-1982 by 7:00 p.m. Therefore, we do not think that the First Information Report in this case about the missing of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh has not been lodged at the alleged time i.e. on 28.09.1982 at 8:00 a.m. We accordingly do not find any force in this argument. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the motive, which has been suggested by the prosecution, is quite weak. 26. The perusal of the evidence on record shows that there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused/appellants pertaining to the property and the money and the litigation was pending before the court and the date was fixed as 27-09-1982 for decision in one of the cases and the deceased persons had gone to Tehri in order to attend the Court. Further, the motive alone does not play any important role in order to bring the guilt of the accused persons to home. The prosecution has to establish the case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we have to see whether the ocular evidence advanced by the prosecution has established the prosecution as has been alleged by it beyond reasonable doubt or not. 27. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, has produced P.W.3 Chhota Singh who is the eyewitness of the actual occurrence and this witness has deposed that he had seen the accused/appellant murdering the deceased Munni Devi & Kripal Singh. 28. The prosecution has also produced P.W.4 Sain Singh, P.W.5 Jyot Singh, P.W.6 Gambhir Singh, P.W.7 Kriti Singh as well as P.W.8 Bhola Singh. The prosecution has produced all these witnesses in order to make the chain complete. 28. The prosecution has also produced P.W.4 Sain Singh, P.W.5 Jyot Singh, P.W.6 Gambhir Singh, P.W.7 Kriti Singh as well as P.W.8 Bhola Singh. The prosecution has produced all these witnesses in order to make the chain complete. 29. P.W.8 Bhola Singh has not supported the prosecution case as he has stated that he did not visit the place of the occurrence on the date of the incident. He has also stated that he did not meet any of the accused/appellants on the way and he has not seen appellant Gyan Singh and Bhagwan Singh dragging the dead bodies towards the Ditch. 30. Likewise, P.W.7 Kriti Singh is a witness who has been produced by the prosecution in order to show that there was some bitterness between the accused persons and deceased Munni Devi on account of some money dispute. This witness has deposed about the circumstance pertaining to the bitterness between the accused persons and the deceased but so far as the involvement of the accused persons in the murder of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh is concerned, that too has not been established by the evidence of this witness. 31. P.W.6, Gambhir Singh is a witness who has proved the recovery memo pertaining to a Dhoti, which was around the neck of Kripal Singh and a cloth, which was also around the neck of Munni Devi. Two pairs of Chappal tied with the Dhoti around the neck of Kripal Singh and a cover of spectacles were also found. A bag along with the comb was also found near the dead body. This witness has also stated that a blood stained stone was also recovered at the spot, which was taken by Patwari in possession. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is not going to connect the accused/appellant directly with the commission of murder. . 32. P.W.5, Jyot Singh has been produced by the prosecution who has deposed that he had seen Sita Devi wife of one of the assailants Bhagwan Singh at the canal. He had seen Sita Devi washing the bloodstained clothes. Again, the \ evidence of this witness does not connect the accused persons with the commission of crime. 33. . 32. P.W.5, Jyot Singh has been produced by the prosecution who has deposed that he had seen Sita Devi wife of one of the assailants Bhagwan Singh at the canal. He had seen Sita Devi washing the bloodstained clothes. Again, the \ evidence of this witness does not connect the accused persons with the commission of crime. 33. P.W.4, Sain Singh has stated that on 26-09-1982, when he was going from his village Kangsali to Tehri, then he saw accused/appellant Gyan Singh, Dharam Singh and Bhagwan Singh who asked him as to whether Munni Devi was going to Tehri Court on the date fixed. This witness has stated that he replied that he did not know of it and has further deposed that on 28-09-1982, Gopal Singh asked him where Munni Devi & Kripal Singh were, then he told that he had not seen them. The evidence 'of this witness does not complete the chain of the circumstance, which may conclusively point out towards the guilt of the accused persons with the commission of crime of murder. 34. The prosecution has emphatically stressed on the evidence of P.W.3 Chhota Singh who has been produced as an eyewitness of the occurrence. This witness has deposed that on 26-09-1982, he went to village Kangsali and from there, he was returning for Tehri in the evening. Since, he reached Ghughudhar, then he heard the shrieks and cries of a woman, which was coming from the direction of Kangsali. This witness has further deposed that he had seen one accused Bhagwan Singh sitting on the chest of deceased Kripal Singh and was throttling his neck. This witness has further deposed that accused/appellant Gyan Singh was sitting over the chest of Munni Devi and was throttling her neck. This witness has also stated that from a distance of eight paces, accused Dharam Singh appeared and asked him that in case if he discloses the occurrence to anyone, then they would kill him. This witness has stated that when afterwards he saw Munni Devi & Kripal Singh, then by that time they were dead. 35. The evidence of this witness is not corroborated in any manner by the medical evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution. We have perused the deposition of P.W.2 Dr. R.B. Singh as well as the medical reports i.e. postmortem of the deceased Munni Devi & Kripal Singh. 35. The evidence of this witness is not corroborated in any manner by the medical evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution. We have perused the deposition of P.W.2 Dr. R.B. Singh as well as the medical reports i.e. postmortem of the deceased Munni Devi & Kripal Singh. We have not found anything either in the postmortem report or in the deposition of the doctor, which may suggest that the death of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh could be as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. The doctor in his deposition stated that deaths -of the aforesaid deceased could be as a result of excessive bleeding on account of the ante-mortem injuries sustained by them. The doctor found three lacerated wounds and three contusions on the person of the deceased Munni Devi but the doctor has not found any symptom on the body of Munni Devi, which may suggest that she had been throttled by the accused/appellant. Likewise, deceased Kripal Singh had sustained seven injuries on his person and out of these injuries, three lacerated wounds and four contusions were found as ante-mortem inju:ies. There is no evidence available on the record that the death of either Munni Devi or Kripal Singh could be caused on account of throttling. 36. Perusal of the statement of doctor who conducted the postmortem report also shows that the injuries sustained on the person of Munni Devi could be caused by the fall from the top of the hill and these injuries could be caused by different falls and not of only single fall. The same condition was with the deceased Kripal Singh as per the opinion of the doctor. Therefore, the story narrated by the alleged eyewitness Chhota Singh with regard to the manner of the incident appears to be completely doubtful. The deposition of this witness about the throttling of the deceased by the accused/appellant is completely ruled out after the perusal of the medical version. 37. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.9 Satya Prasad, Investigating Officer has stated that the Dhotis were wrapped over the neck of both the deceased tightly but again the postmortem report no where indicatestl1at there was any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and this condition again creates doubt about the prosecution case. 38. 37. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.9 Satya Prasad, Investigating Officer has stated that the Dhotis were wrapped over the neck of both the deceased tightly but again the postmortem report no where indicatestl1at there was any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and this condition again creates doubt about the prosecution case. 38. If the Inquest Report pertaining to the dead bodies is perused, then it appears that the injuries on the persons of the deceased could be caused by the use of lathi and the stones. P.W.9 Satya Prasad has also deposed in his deposition before the Court that he reached to this conclusion by the deposition of the witness as well as from the perusal of the postmortem report that the death of deceased Munni Devi & Kripal Singh was caused by the lathis and stones. 39. Again, this part of the evidence falsifies the entire prosecution case. In the statement of Chhota Singh, it has nowhere been stated by him that the accused/appellant had ever used any lathi or stone during the course of the assault. P. W. 9 has also deposed in his cross-examination that Chhota Singh has never stated before him that Munni Devi & Kripal Singh were assaulted by the accused/appellant with lathi and stones. Perusal of the statement of P.W.3 Chhota Singh also shows that he has nowhere stated that the accused/appellant used lathis and stones during the commission of crime. 40. There is nothing on record, which may suggest that accused/appellant have murdered Munni Devi & Kripal Singh and thereafter threw them towards the Ditch from the top of the hill. While the postmortem report and the opinion of the doctor about the injuries sustained by the deceased clearly reveals that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been caused by the fall from the top of the hill, therefore the only solitary eyewitness produced by the prosecution nowhere establishes this aspect that he had actually seen the accused/appellant murdering the deceased either by way of throttling or by assault of lath is and stones or by throwing them from the top of the hill. The manner of incident as has been alleged by the prosecution has not been established by way of any evidence adduced by the prosecution. The manner of incident as has been alleged by the prosecution has not been established by way of any evidence adduced by the prosecution. Whatever the evidence is there, the same does not connect the accused/appellant with the actual commission of crime of murder of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh. 41. The another important aspect for disbelieving the eyewitness account is that Chhota Singh, an alleged eyewitness kept silence and did not disclose the actual occurrence to anyone for three days. As per the deposition of this witness, he had seen the actual occurrence in the evening of 26-09-1982 but he has not disclosed this fact to anyone up to 29-9-1982. This witness has stated that a peon from the Patwari Chowki came to his house on 29-09-1982 in order to call him and thereafter Patwari recorded his statement at about 4:00 p.m. on 29.09.1982. It is quite surprising that this witness is known to the deceased as well as to the accused/appellant and he is a resident of a place which is at a distance of about two and half mile from the village Kangsali to which deceased and accused/appellants belong. The silence of this witness for three days creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case. 42. Moreover, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence in view of the fact that he is a chance witness, as he has stated in his cross-examination before the Court that he did not have any specific work with Surat Singh on 26-09-1982. As per his deposition, he had gone to village Kangsali at the house of Surat Singh who is his "Sadhu". This witness has stated that he went to Surat Singh casually. He has also stated that he had also gone to Surat Singh about one month ago from the date of this occurrence. Therefore, the deposition of this witness that he had gone to village Kangsali to his "Sadhu" Surat Singh without any specific work again creates a doubt with regard to his presence at the place of the occurrence at the alleged date and time of the incident. The presence of this witness on the spot at the time of the occurrence does not appear to be natural. 43. The presence of this witness on the spot at the time of the occurrence does not appear to be natural. 43. It is worthy to mention here that P.W.3 Chhota Singh infact had filed an affidavit before the Court during the pendency of the trial (this affidavit has been marked as exhibit Kha-1 dated 16-03-1983). The affidavit reveals that Chhota Singh is the deponent of this affidavit and he has stated therein that he had not seen the incident. . 44. Perusal of the affidavit Kha-1 clearly makes the testimony of P.W.3 doubtful. It is quite clear that the veracity of this witness is always changing and when a witness keeps his deposition changing all the time, then certainly this type of witnesses cannot be said to be trustworthy in any manner. 45. Apart of the affidavit filed by this witness before the Court during the course of the trial (exhibit Kha-l), the testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence in view of the major omission in his deposition before the court and his testimony finds no corroboration with the medical evidence at all. . 46. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer P.W.9. Satya Prasad also shows that P.W.3, Chhota Singh infact had no opportunity to see the actual incident. As per the deposition of P.W.l, the place where the earth was crushed is not seen from the place, which joins the Pagdandi. As per the deposition of P.W.l, the place where the earth was crushed is the place of the actual incident and when this witness has stated that this place is not visible from the main road, which joins the Pagdandi. Then, it is not possible for P.W.3 Chhota Singh to have seen the actual occurrence from the place where he was standing at the time of the occurrence. 47. The direct evidence pertaining to the murder of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh does not appear to be satisfactory and is not going to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The specific evidence as has been produced by the prosecution does not complete the chain in order to point out the guilt of the accused with regard to the commission of crime. 48. As per the. evidence adduced by the prosecution, the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer also does not inspire confidence. The specific evidence as has been produced by the prosecution does not complete the chain in order to point out the guilt of the accused with regard to the commission of crime. 48. As per the. evidence adduced by the prosecution, the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer also does not inspire confidence. The Investigating Officer has certainly not prepared the site plan at the instance of Chhota Singh' who is an alleged eyewitness of the actual occurrence. Therefore, it is doubtful as to how the Investigating Officer came to know with regard to the particular spots as to where the murder took place, where the deceased were throttled and from where they were thrown to the deep Ditch from the top of the hill. P.W.9, Satya Prasad, Investigating Officer has stated that he prepared the site plan on his own. He has stated that on his own imagination, he marked the spots where the murder of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh had occurred. This witness has stated that he met Chhota Singh, P.W.3 on 29-09-1982, while he had prepared the site plan on 2809-1982 at 4:00 p.m. Therefore, the preparation of the site plan by the Investigating Officer on the basis of conjecture and surmises makes the place of the occurrence also doubtful. Further, as per the Investigating Officer, he did not find any bloodstain from the spot 'A' where the dead bodies of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh were found. Therefore, absence of any bloodstain from the spot road 'A' creates a doubt with regard to the actual place of the occurrence. 49. On the basis of the assessment of evidence on records, we are of the definite opinion that the prosecution could not successfully establish the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has neither completed the chain of the circumstances which may conclusively point out the guilt of the accused persons towards the commission of murder of Munni Devi & Kripal Singh, nor the direct evidence produced by the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons. 50. We are, therefore, of the view that the conviction and sentence thereon passed by the trial court against the accused/appellants is liable to be set aside. 51. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence thereon passed by the trial court by way of the impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. 52. 50. We are, therefore, of the view that the conviction and sentence thereon passed by the trial court against the accused/appellants is liable to be set aside. 51. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence thereon passed by the trial court by way of the impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. 52. A copy of this judgment shall be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2001. 53. A copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court records should be sent back to the Trial Court concerned.