Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.11.1996 of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he acquitted Swinder Singh alias Chhindu and convicted appellant Mangal Singh under Section 364 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. Mangal Singh was also convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution story is unfolded by the statement Ex.PA of PW-2 Nirmal Singh son of Sucha Singh Sansi given on 18.3.1994 at 5 p.m. before SI Dharam Singh (PW-6). He stated that he is a labourer. He has two brothers and two sisters. On 11.3.1994 at 8 p.m. appellant Mangal Singh whose house is adjacent to house of complainant, called his father Sucha Singh (since deceased) to his house. They being neighbours, Sucha Singh went to the house of the appellant. Chhindu son of Shangara was also present. All the three started consuming liquor. Later on, Nirmal Singh enquired from the wife of Mangal Singh regarding the whereabouts of his father. She stated that Mangal Singh, Sucha Singh and Chhindu had gone out. Again in the morning, Nirmal Singh went to the house of appellant Mangal Singh to enquire about his father who had not returned. Mangal Singh stated that he had sent Sucha Singh to convey some message to his relatives. After about 4/5 days, Nirmal Singhs brother Jhirmal Singh along with some persons enquired from Mangal Singh regarding the whereabouts of Sucha Singh deceased. Mangal Singh stated that Sucha Singh had fallen ill and he would bring him back home from his (Mangal Singhs relatives) house. Further, in his statement before PW-6 SI Dharam Singh, Nirmal Singh stated that he suspected that Mangal Singh and Chhindu had kidnapped his father Sucha Singh with intention to kill him. Deceased Sucha Singh had taken a loan from appellant Mangal Singh and Chhindu (who has been acquitted by the trial Court) to run a business. After recording of the statement, formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/2 was registered on 18.3.1994 at 5.20 p.m. under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, PW-2 Nirmal Singh, PW-3 Darshan Singh, PW-4 Karma, PW-5 Lakhwinder Singh and PW-6 SI Dharam Singh. After recording of the statement, formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/2 was registered on 18.3.1994 at 5.20 p.m. under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, PW-2 Nirmal Singh, PW-3 Darshan Singh, PW-4 Karma, PW-5 Lakhwinder Singh and PW-6 SI Dharam Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that motive to commit the crime is not established. As alleged by PW-2 Nirmal Singh, no money transaction had taken place in his presence. He did not know the total sum of money borrowed, nor did he know as to in whose presence this amount was returned. Relations between the appellant and Sucha Singh could not have been cordial, if there was a dispute over money transaction going on between both of them. Their taking liquor together meant that appellant and Sucha Singh had good relations. Motive for commission of the crime is a concocted one. 4. PW-2 Nirmal Singh and PW-3 Darshan Singh who are both sons of the deceased, have not shown natural behaviour specially after they came to know that their father was missing. PW-2 Nirmal Singh in his testimony stated that he asked the wife of Mangal Singh appellant regarding the whereabouts of Sucha Singh, who stated that he had gone out with appellant Mangal Singh and Chhindu. On the next day i.e. on 12.3.1994, he again enquired from Mangal Singh regarding the whereabouts of his father, who replied that he had sent him to give a message to his relatives. It has come in evidence that Mangal Singh and Sucha Singh were neighbours. In the F.I.R. Ex.PA/2, it has been stated by PW-2 Nirmal Singh that deceased Sucha Singh was wearing a Chadar, Kameej, and a Parna (small piece of cloth) on his head. Nobody in the villages goes to another place wearing a Parna. One always wears a turban on his head. Nothing has come in the statement of PW-2 Nirmal Singh or PW-3 Darshan Singh as to what transport was used when deceased Sucha Singh was sent to give a message to the relative of Mangal Singh after 8 p.m. i.e. night time. PW-2 Nirmal Singh knew that deceased Sucha Singh had gone from the house of Mangal Singh along with Mangal Singh and Chhindu. This had been told to him (Nirmal Singh) by none else than the wife of appellant Mangal Singh. PW-2 Nirmal Singh knew that deceased Sucha Singh had gone from the house of Mangal Singh along with Mangal Singh and Chhindu. This had been told to him (Nirmal Singh) by none else than the wife of appellant Mangal Singh. Even though knowing that Sucha Singh had been sent away by Mangal Singh and no definite answer was coming from the side of appellant Mangal Singh or his wife as to the whereabouts of Sucha Singh, PW-2 Nirmal Singh did not inform the police for several days. 5. The prosecution has tried to make out a case that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. In fact, PW-2 Nirmal Singh has not stated that he had seen deceased Sucha Singh in the company of appellant Mangal Singh in the night when it has been alleged that Mangal Singh called Sucha Singh to his house. Last seen evidence is not convincing. 6. PW-3 Darshan Singh in his statement has not said a word about the Kassi Ex. P14. There are no human blood stains on the Kassi. The Investigating Officer PW-6 SI Dharam Singh has stated in his testimony that the recovery of dead- body, preparation of inquest report, and recovery of Kassi, were all done on 19.3.1994. Photographs of the dead-body being taken out from the place of burial were also taken on 19.3.1994. 7. Darshan Singh (PW-3) in his statement has testified that police came to the village on 18.3.1994 in between 10 and 11 a.m. Along with them was appellant Mangal Singh and Mohinder Singh Chowkidar. Appellant Mangal Singh took the police party to the field of Jagir Singh. He (Darshan Singh) accompanied the police party. Mangal Singh removed earth and pulled out the dead-body of Sucha Singh from the field of Jagir Singh. Recovery of dead-body has been made before the F.I.R. came into existence. The chain of circumstances does not connect the appellant with the commission of offence. 8. Learned counsel for the State has stated that appellant and Sucha Singh were on good terms. If they had not been on good terms, deceased would not have gone to the house of the appellant to have liquor in the night. Report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW1/E shows that liquor had been consumed. It is admitted that appellant and deceased were neighbours. If they had not been on good terms, deceased would not have gone to the house of the appellant to have liquor in the night. Report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW1/E shows that liquor had been consumed. It is admitted that appellant and deceased were neighbours. PW-2 Nirmal Singh enquired from Mangal Singh as well as his wife regarding the whereabouts of the deceased and he was satisfied with their reply. PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai has stated that death had occurred 5/7 days earlier. Post-mortem on the body of Sucha Singh was conducted on 19.3.1994 at 2.05 p.m. Photographs Exhibits P8 to P13 show that the dead-body was concealed. In the opinion of the doctor (PW- 1), there was mud present on the clothes of the deceased. Body was found in the fields of Jagir Singh. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 10. Occurrence had taken place on 11.3.1994 at 8 p.m. As per the prosecution version, appellant Mangal Singh called the deceased to his house, where they consumed liquor, Chhindu (since acquitted) was also present. PW-6 SI Dharam Singh, Police Station, Jandiala was informed on 18.3.1994 at 5 p.m. by PW-2 Nirmal Singh that his father Sucha Singh was missing and he suspected that appellant Mangal Singh and Chhindu had kidnapped him. F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was registered under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. For seven days i.e. from 11.3.1994 till 8.3.1994, PW-2 Nirmal Singh or his brother PW-3 Darshan Singh did not inform the police, or their relatives, or the respectables of the village about the dis-appearance of Sucha Singh. PW-2 Nirmal Singh in his testimony stated that money was borrowed by deceased Sucha Singh from appellant Mangal Singh and Chhindu for running a business. On the night of 11.3.1994, PW-2 Nirmal Singh went to the house of appellant Mangal Singh who was his next-door neighbour, and enquired from his wife as to the whereabouts of his father Sucha Singh. She replied that Mangal Singh, Chhindu and Sucha Singh had gone out. It is strange that Nirmal Singh did not become suspicious regarding the disappearance of a Singh, specially it being night and after consuming liquor, his father had gone with Mangal Singh and Chhindu to whom they owed money. She replied that Mangal Singh, Chhindu and Sucha Singh had gone out. It is strange that Nirmal Singh did not become suspicious regarding the disappearance of a Singh, specially it being night and after consuming liquor, his father had gone with Mangal Singh and Chhindu to whom they owed money. On the next day, again PW-2 Nirmal Singh enquired from Mangal Singh about the whereabouts of his father, who stated that he had sent Sucha Singh to his relatives house to give a message. Nothing has come in the statement of PW-2 Nirmal Singh and PW-3 Darshan Singh as to where Sucha Singh was sent. In the natural course of events, PW-2 Nirmal Singh and PW-3 Darshan Singh would have started making enquiries on their own on the very next day. For seven days they did not inform their relatives, neighbours, or panchayat of the village about the missing of Sucha Singh. PW-2 Nirmal Singh should have raised hue and cry on the very next day when he was not getting a satisfactory answer from either Mangal Singh or his wife. Behaviour of PW-2 Nirmal Singh and PW-3 Darshan Singh is not natural. They have cooked up a story to falsely implicate appellant Mangal Singh. 11. The motive for the commission of the offence does not inspire confidence. PW-2 Nirmal Singh in his testimony has stated that he does not know the amount of loan taken by deceased Sucha Singh from appellant Mangal Singh, nor does he know as to in whose presence, some amount was returned. Nirmal Singh is no other person than the son of deceased Sucha Singh. They were living in the same house. Loans taken for purpose of business are never a secret amongst the family members, especially when all are living under the same roof. No witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove the money transaction, nor has any document been brought on record as to prove the amount borrowed by deceased Sucha Singh from appellant Mangal Singh. Relations of Sucha Singh and Mangal Singh seem to have been cordial. PW-2 Nirmal Singh has stated that Mangal Singh called Sucha Singh at 8 p.m. on 11.3.1994 to his house to drink liquor. If relations between them were not cordial, then Sucha Singh would not have gone to the house of Mangal Singh in the night. 12. Relations of Sucha Singh and Mangal Singh seem to have been cordial. PW-2 Nirmal Singh has stated that Mangal Singh called Sucha Singh at 8 p.m. on 11.3.1994 to his house to drink liquor. If relations between them were not cordial, then Sucha Singh would not have gone to the house of Mangal Singh in the night. 12. The Investigating Officer PW-6 SI Dharam Singh in his testimony has stated that on 18.3.1994, he was present at Bus Stand, Village Manawala in the evening and that PW-2 Nirmal Singh complainant came there and made statement Ex. PA. He went to the village in search of the appellant and raided his house at 5.45 p.m. PW-3 Darshan Singh met him on the same day and his statement was recorded. Case under Section 364 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Manawala. On 19.3.1994, appellant Mangal Singh was produced by Pritam Singh Sarpanch. Mangal Singh made a disclosure statement Ex. PG that he concealed the dead-body of Sucha Singh which was buried in the fields of Jagir Singh. Statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) has been contradicted by PW-3 Darshan Singh, who in his statement has stated that on 18.3.1994, the police came to his village. Accompanying the police party was Mohinder Singh Chowkidar and Mangal Singh accused. Darshan Singh accompanied the police party and all of them went to the fields of Jagir Singh. Accused/appellant Mangal Singh removed earth from the field and took out the dead-body of Sucha Singh. Recovery memo Ex. PB was prepared. Recovery memo Ex. PB has been attested by PW-3 Darshan Singh, Mohinder Singh Chowkidar and SI Tarsem Lal of Police Station Jandiala. It shows that it was prepared on 19.3.1994 and not on 18.3.1994. Learned counsel for the State did not have any plausible answer to this glaring discrepancy. From the statement of PW-3 Darshan Singh, it is clear that the police had started their investigation much before the statement of PW-2 Nirmal Singh was recorded. Not only that, but the dead-body was recovered before the F.I.R. came into existence. Statement of PW-3 Darshan Singh has not been made inadvertently. From the statement of PW-3 Darshan Singh, it is clear that the police had started their investigation much before the statement of PW-2 Nirmal Singh was recorded. Not only that, but the dead-body was recovered before the F.I.R. came into existence. Statement of PW-3 Darshan Singh has not been made inadvertently. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that police came on 18.3.1994, and further in his cross-examination, he has given the time as 10/11 a.m. He has stated that not only he but about 200 more persons were present who accompanied the police party to the field of Jagir Singh. It is strange as to why the prosecution did not cite Jagir Singh, from whose fields the dead-body was recovered, as a witness. PW-2 Nirmal Singh in his statement has stated that on 18.3.1994, he actually learnt from the police that his father Sucha Singh was dead. The Investigating Officer PW-6 SI Dharam Singh has in his statement stated that the disclosure statement of appellant Mangal Singh was made on 19.3.1994 regarding the dead-body. Further, he made a statement that Kassi was also concealed in the same field. The photographer who took the photographs Exhibits P8 to P13 and also prepared the negatives Exhibits P2 to P7, also came on 19.3.1994. The Investigating Officer PW-6 SI Dharam Singh has not denied this fact that PW-3 Darshan Singh met him on 18.3.1994 at 5.45 p.m., where his statement was recorded. Statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) and Darshan Singh (PW-3) corroborate to the extent that they met each other on 18.3.1994. PW-3 Darshan Singh stated that he met the Investigating Officer PW-6 SI Dharam Singh at 10/11 a.m. on 18.3.1994 and the Investigating Officer (PW-6) has stated that he met Darshan Singh at 5.45 p.m. on 18.3.1994. Both do not corroborate each other regarding the time of meeting. 13. From photographs Exhibits P8 to P13, one can make out that the dead-body was recovered from the field where Barsim (fodder) and wheat has been sown. Barsim is fed to cattle. In the villages, the father (farmer ?) cuts fresh Barsim for his cattle on a day-to-day basis to feed his cattle. It is strange that Jagir Singh in whose field, the dead-body was buried, did not see that patch of land shown in the photographs Exhibits P8 to P13, that the land out there was barren and soft. In the villages, the father (farmer ?) cuts fresh Barsim for his cattle on a day-to-day basis to feed his cattle. It is strange that Jagir Singh in whose field, the dead-body was buried, did not see that patch of land shown in the photographs Exhibits P8 to P13, that the land out there was barren and soft. Jagir Singh could have put valuable light on the recovery of the dead body. 14. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Appeal is accepted. Judgment dated 6.11.1996 of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.