Judgment S.S.Grewal, J. 1. By this common order, four criminal appeals viz. Cri. Appeal Nos. 614-DB of 2000, 653-DB of 2000, 654-DB of 2000 and Cri. Appeal No. 57-DB of 2001, filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and Cri. Revision No. 221 of 2001 filed by Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased, are being disposed of as these arise out of the same judgment. 2. The accused appellants have filed the above mentioned criminal appeals for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2000 in case FIR No. 49 dated 3-4-1998 registered under Sections 302/402/148/149/120-B, IPC at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, vide which all the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 302/34, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months; to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 450, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 404, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month and that all the sentences will run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2001 has been filed for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused-appellants and to pay compensation to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of this case are that Harvinder Singh, deceased had come from Philpine and after his return, he started residing at Kothi No. 69, Guru Nagar, Model Town, Jalandhar. Miss Manpreet Kaur, his sisters daughter, a student of 5th class also started living with him. The present case was registered on the basis of statement (Ex. P/E) made by Miss Manpreet Kaur, complainant. She alleged that on 1-4-1998, she had gone to meet Ajit Singh alias Jai Hind, her maternal uncle, who was residing in Kothi No. 712, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. On 2-4-1998, Harvinder Singh at about 6.00 p.m. went there and took her back to Kothi No. 69 at Jalandhar. P/E) made by Miss Manpreet Kaur, complainant. She alleged that on 1-4-1998, she had gone to meet Ajit Singh alias Jai Hind, her maternal uncle, who was residing in Kothi No. 712, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. On 2-4-1998, Harvinder Singh at about 6.00 p.m. went there and took her back to Kothi No. 69 at Jalandhar. He told her that he along with Jagdeep Singh, accused were going to market to bring food for dinner at night and she should stay at home. Kuldeep Kaur, real sister of Harvinder Singh also came there in the meantime. She is the maternal sister of Miss Manpreet Kaur. Harvinder Singh (deceased) along with Jagdeep Singh accused started taking liquor at about 9.00 p.m. in the bed-room. Manpreet along with Kuldip Kaur slept in the other bed-room. 4. On 3-4-1998, at about 8.00 a.m. Miss Manpreet Kaur and Kuldip Kaur spotted some foul smell and smoke coming from the bed-room of Harvinder Singh. On opening the door of the said room, they noticed that Harvinder Singh was lying dead, and his body was cut into pieces and smoke was coming out of the bed. Due to the fire, the left thigh and other parts of the body of deceased Harvinder Singh were lying burnt. They further found that a bloodstained kirpan was lying on the bed and the body of the deceased was glazzed with vegetable oil. On the basis of her statement Ex. P/E, FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded by the police. 5. After investigations and arrest of the accused, challan was presented in the Court and the accused were charged under Sections 302, 450, 404, 148 and 149, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its version, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Gurinder Kaur, PW-2 Dalip Singh, Draftsman, PW-3 Miss Manpreet Kaur (complainant), PW-4 Kuldeep Kaur, PW-5 Harcharan Singh, PW-6 Mohan Lal, PW-7 Baldev Singh, PW-8 Ajit Singh, PW-9 Prithipal Singh, PW-10 Insp. Lakhbir Singh, PW-11 S.I. Balwinder Iqbal Singh and PW-12 C. Manjit Singh and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. Accused Gurdeep Singh and Jasbir Singh pleaded that they never went to the house of Sadhu Singh and did not knew Harvinder Singh, Manpreet Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. Accused Gurdeep Singh and Jasbir Singh pleaded that they never went to the house of Sadhu Singh and did not knew Harvinder Singh, Manpreet Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that prosecution case was based on the extra judicial confession, recovery of articles and some money of the deceased Harvinder Singh from the accused-appellants. PW-7 Baldev Singh, before whom the alleged confession was made, did not support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Accused Jagdeep Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Amrik Singh were arrested on 5-4-1998 whereas accused Joga Singh and Parvinder Singh were arrested on 6-4-1998. On 8-4-1998, S.I. Balwinder Iqbal Singh (PW-11) interrogated Gurdeep Singh, accused, who disclosed that he had kept concealed one wrist watch, 40 dollars and a driving licence in the room of the residential house and could get the same recovered. His statement, Ex. PQ was recorded which was signed by the accused and attested by Ajit Singh, PW-8. Thereafter, Amrik Singh was interrogated, who made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed kirpan and golden ring in the cattle shed of his house and could get the same recovered. His statement Ex. PR was recorded, which was signed by the accused and attested by PW-8 Ajit Singh. Jagdeep Singh, accused was thereafter interrogated who disclosed that he had kept concealed one golden chain, 40 dollars in the pipe of store of his house and the same could get recovered. His statement Ex. PO was recorded, which was signed by the accused and attested by PW-8. Then recoveries were effected according to the disclosure statements. 10. Learned counsel further argued that firstly, it was not mentioned in the FIR that these articles, viz. His statement Ex. PO was recorded, which was signed by the accused and attested by PW-8. Then recoveries were effected according to the disclosure statements. 10. Learned counsel further argued that firstly, it was not mentioned in the FIR that these articles, viz. wrist watch, golden ring, golden chain and purse of deceased were missing from the person of the deceased and there is no evidence on the file that these articles were owned by the deceased and police had failed to explain when the accused were arrested on 5th and 6th April, 1998, and were being interrogated then why the recoveries were made on 8th of April, 1998 after so many days. Miss Manpreet Kaur has appeared as PW-3. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not tell the police that Harvinder Singh (deceased) used to wear gold ring and chain, wrist watch and keep purse in his pocket. She has further stated that on the next day, she was called to police station and police showed her wrist watch, gold chain, gold ring and purse of her maternal uncle, Harvinder Singh. Thus, when the occurrence had taken place on 2-4-1998 and the articles were shown to her by police on 3-4-1998 then the prosecution version regarding disclosure statements dated 8-4-1998 of accused and recoveries made thereafter, is totally unbelievable and baseless. Learned counsel further argued that there is no evidence on record that PW-5 and PW-6 knew the accused earlier. PW-5 also could not have recognised accused coming out of the house of Harvinder Singh at 11.00 p.m. on 2-4-1998 because he never seen or knew them earlier. The presence of PW-3 and PW-4 in the house is doubtful on the basis of non-presence of alcohol in the stomach of deceased. Non-hearing of raula of deceased while being hit with kirpan, when they were sleeping in adjoining room in the same house also creates doubt about their presence. The learned counsel submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the accused-appellants and thus, the appeals filed by the appellants be allowed and accused-appellants be acquitted of the charge. 11. Learned State counsel on the other hand, argued that in this case, charge of conspiracy has not been framed against the accused. So, the prosecution could not get the benefit of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. 11. Learned State counsel on the other hand, argued that in this case, charge of conspiracy has not been framed against the accused. So, the prosecution could not get the benefit of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. However, he pointed out that certain recoveries have been effected from the accused on interrogation and P.W. 5 has seen the accused coming out of the house of deceased Harvinder Singh at about 11.00 p.m., almost immediately after the occurrence. P.W. 6 has heard the accused appellant while deciding to finish Harvinder Singh (deceased). 12. There is no evidence on record that P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 knew the accused earlier and they could have recognised them. P.W. 5 stated that when he was returning to his house from the house of his parents on 11.30 pm. on 2-4-1998 he saw Jagdeep Singh alias Bittu, Jasbir Singh, Joga Singh, Amrik Singh, Parvinder Singh and Gurdev Singh, accused, coming out of the house of Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he stated that he never went to the house of any of the accused. P.W. 6 has stated that he was taking tea when the accused were planning to finish Harvinder Singh as he had developed illicit relations with the sister of Gurdeep Singh. When the accused were not known to both of these witnesses, how could they recognise them. No identity parade was held where P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 could have recognised the accused appellants. Both of them also stated that they were not on visiting terms with Harvinder Singh, deceased and accused appellants. The ownership of alleged recovered articles from the accused have not been established nor these were mentioned in the FIR. P.W. 3 Miss Manpreet Kaur has clearly stated that she had seen the wrist watch, gold ring, gold chain and purse when the police called her on the next day of occurrence i.e. on 3-4-1998. So the recoveries become doubtful. 13. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have stated that Harvinder Singh (deceased) and accused appellant started drinking alcohql and eating meat, while they slept in the other room at about 9.00 pm. But P.W. 1 Dr. Gurinder Kaur has clearly stated that there was no alcohol in the stomach of the deceased and there was no smell of alcohol in the body and clothes of the deceased. But P.W. 1 Dr. Gurinder Kaur has clearly stated that there was no alcohol in the stomach of the deceased and there was no smell of alcohol in the body and clothes of the deceased. Harvinder Singh was killed with kirpan and could have raised raula, which could have been heard/disturbed P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who were allegedly sleeping in the other room. These facts and circumstances raise question-mark on the presence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 in the house of the deceased on that day. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and they are acquitted of the charge. However, the revision filed by Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased, being Crl. R. No. 221 of 2001 stands dismissed.