Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of Murder Reference No. 6 of 2005 : State of Haryana v. Gopi Chand and Bhupinder and also Criminal Appeal No. 320-DB of 2005 : Gopi Chand and Bhupinder v. State of Haryana, as common judgment dated 23.3.2005/2.4.2005, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, is in question. 2. F.I.R. No. 357 dated May 22, 2003 had been registered under Sections 302/404/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Ballabhgarh on the statement of Gopi Chand son of Madhav Singh aged 23 years one of the accused. The facts stated in the FIR are, that murder of Ramwati wife of Gopi Chand and Rahul son of Gopi Chand aged 6 years had been committed. 3. The investigation/inquiry was conducted on the basis of the allegations summed up under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accompanying documents; Gopi Chand son of Madhav Singh aged 23 years and Bhupinder son of Nawal Singh aged 22 years, had been charged vide order dated 22.10.2003, for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of the charges against the accused. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the plea of both the accused is that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused have examined Head Constable, Police Station, Ballabghgarh for proving the FIR which has been exhibited as Ex. D1, claiming that the murder of his wife and son is an act of dacoity, which had been duly notified to the police by him himself. However, this FIR has also been proved by the prosecution and has been exhibited as Ex. PD/1 by the Investigating Officer i.e. S.I. Dhan Singh, who has appeared as PW9. 5. It shall be apposite to notice the contents of the FIR which read as under :- "Statement of Gopi Chand son of Madhav Singh, aged 27 years, Caste Kushwah Rajput, resident of village Fatehbad, Agra, U.P. at present tenant of Lal Chand Gali No. 1, Punjabiwara, Ballabhgarh. I am resident of above mentioned address and running a vegetable shop at Sabzi Mandi, Milk Plant Road, Ballabhgarh. I am resident of above mentioned address and running a vegetable shop at Sabzi Mandi, Milk Plant Road, Ballabhgarh. Yesterday on 22.5.2003, I picked up a lottery from one Madan Mota, in which I had received a sum of Rs. 75,800/-. On reaching home I after putting Rs. 75,000/- in a bag had hanged the same on a wall peg and kept Rs. 800/- with me. Today during day time, I was present at my shop. At about 1 p.m. I had gone to my house for taking meals and returned to my shop at 3.00 p.m. After taking the meals, my wife Ramwati and sons Rahul aged 6 years and Chintu aged 2 years were present at home at that time. At about 7.00 p.m. when I was present at my shop, my nephew Hari Om son of Ramji Lal came to me and told that when he had gone to his house to answer the call of nature, he found that Chintu was weeping and he was stained with blood. On this information, I along with my nephew came to my house and found that there was darkness in the house. I switched on the light and saw that my wife Ramwati and son Rahul being murdered, were lying on the ground in the room. There were cut injury marks caused with sharp edged weapons on their necks. The household articles were lying scattered. The bag, in which I had kept Rs. 75,000/- was lying on the door and the amount was missing from it. Some unknown person having entered into my house had taken away the said amount of Rs. 75,000/- after committing the murder of my wife and son. At this time, I do not suspect any person. Action may be taken. I have got recorded my statement, which I have heard and the same is correct. Sd/- Gopi Chand (In Hindi) Attested Sd/- Dhan Singh SI 1/CP.P A.S. Chowk, Ballabhgarh. Dated 23.5.2003. Police Proceedings : Today I along with HC Ayub Khan No. 444, constable Narender Kumar No. 1644 was present at Aggarsen Chowk in connection with patrolling that aforesaid Shri Gopi Chand met me, the S.I. got recorded his above said statement. It was reduced into writing and read over to him, who having admitted the same to be correct, put his signature in Hindi below his statement, to which I attest. It was reduced into writing and read over to him, who having admitted the same to be correct, put his signature in Hindi below his statement, to which I attest. The above said statement prima facie discloses the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 392, 302 IPC. Therefore, this writing is being sent to the Police Station through Constable Hari Krishan No. 2255 for registration of a case (FIR). After registration of the case (FIR), number thereof may be intimated. The Dog Squad, Scene of crime team and the SHO may be sent at the spot. The higher officers may be informed through special report. I the S.I. along with accompanying officials proceeded to the spot. From Aggarsen Chowk Ballabhgarh S.I. Dhan Singh ASI (In English) Police Station City Ballabhgarh. Received at 5 a.m. Sd/- JMIC, Faridabad Dated 24.5.2003." 6. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 7 p.m. (probably prior thereto as indicated by the medical evidence) on May 22, 2003 and that the FIR is stated to have been recorded at 8.50 p.m. on May 23, 2005. S.I. Dhan Singh PW9, after recording the statement of Gopi Chand, which has been exhibited as Ex. PD and the action taken by the police is Ex. PD/3, went to the spot and the photographs of the dead bodies were also taken. Inquest proceedings were conducted. The inquest reports Exhibits PG and PJ were also prepared. The bodies were taken to the hospital. The written request was made for conducting post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of Ramwati and Rahul. Three Doctors namely Dr. D.S. Rathi along with Dr. Arvind Lohan and Dr. Beena Sharma conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Ramwati wife of Gopi Chand and found the following injuries :- 1. There was incised wound 18 cm. long 5 cm wide present over the front of the neck just above the adams apple extending from left sterno cleido maspoid muscle upper interior border towards the right side of neck upto the nape 3 cm. below the external occipital protuberemce of right side. Larynx, oesophagus right side neck muscles and vessels cutted. Food material semi- digested was coming out from the oesophagus. Clotted blood was present in the wound. 2. There was incised wound 2x5 cm. present over the dorsal aspect of the left wrist joint. below the external occipital protuberemce of right side. Larynx, oesophagus right side neck muscles and vessels cutted. Food material semi- digested was coming out from the oesophagus. Clotted blood was present in the wound. 2. There was incised wound 2x5 cm. present over the dorsal aspect of the left wrist joint. This was the body of the well built young female wearing red blouse and red saree, white bra and yellow petticoat. Eyes were open. Mouth was closed. Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs and post- mortem staining was also present. Rest all the organs were healthy and pale. Larynx and trachea, pharynx and oesophagus already described earlier. Stomach contained about 150 cc semi-digested food material." 7. The Doctor had opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of cutting of the throat and thereby causing the injury accordingly and that the other injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On the same day, they had also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Rahul, aged six years. The following injuries have been spelt out on his person :- "An incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm. over the front of the neck just above the sternal notch extending from left mid clavicular line to right mid clavicular line. He added that trachea, oesophagus and both sides muscles and vessles were cut. Clotted blood was present in the wound." 8. It has been testified inter alia that the cause of death of the child was due to shock and hameorrhage as a result of cutting of the throat. The resultant injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The other witnesses have also been examined, who have testified the facts of sending the bodies from the place of occurrence to the hospital, conducting of the inquest proceedings for post- mortem examination and that making of the sealed parcels of the articles. They have been duly exhibited, as has been noticed in the judgment of the trial Court. The act of lifting the bodies, lifting of blood-stained earth and clothes etc. have been duly believed as is indicative pursuant to the statements of the witness. The recovery memors have also been exhibited. 9. They have been duly exhibited, as has been noticed in the judgment of the trial Court. The act of lifting the bodies, lifting of blood-stained earth and clothes etc. have been duly believed as is indicative pursuant to the statements of the witness. The recovery memors have also been exhibited. 9. The trial Court, upon appraisal of prosecution evidence, has come to the conclusion that the relations amongst Gopi Chand and his wife Ramwati (since deceased) were strained which became the motive on the part of the accused/husband Gopi Chand for committing the murder of his wife. It has also been held that Bhupinder had also participated in committing the crime as the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was removed and was found in his possession. Thus he has been held liable for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC. This amount was in possession of Ramwati, as has been corroborated from the evidence brought on record. It has been stated that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- had been brought by Gopi Chand on the date of occurrence, statedly upon maturity of lottery amount, from one Madan. Though a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is stated to have been recovered from Gopi Chand but he could not be held guilty of misappropriation, as the amount admittedly belonged to him. As such, he has not been held guilty of offence under Section 404 IPC. The reason given for murdering Rahul is that he could be the probable eye-witness. Therefore, both of them decided to eliminate him as well, resultantly, have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The trial Court heard both the accused on the question of sentence and has come to the conclusion that both of them committed the most heinous crime for murdering the wife and the son. It has been observed that Gopi Chand pre- planned the conspiracy with Bhupinder by entering into a contract of murdering his wife for a contractual amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Gopi Chand went himself to lodge the FIR of the alleged murder of his wife and child coupled with the fact of dacoity of Rs. 75,000/- in his house. Out of this amount, upon investigation, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was found from `Booga Toori of the accused Bhupinder and that the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Gopi Chand went himself to lodge the FIR of the alleged murder of his wife and child coupled with the fact of dacoity of Rs. 75,000/- in his house. Out of this amount, upon investigation, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was found from `Booga Toori of the accused Bhupinder and that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from the room of the accused Gopi Chand. It has been observed that a cold blooded murder had been committed by Gopi Chand and Bhupinder while being in dominant position vis-a-vis the child as well as his wife Ramwati. Thus, in view of the instructions contained in para-36 of Chapter-24 (Part-B) Vol. III of the High Court Rules and Orders read with the provisions contained in Section 363(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide which, the accused have been held guilty, have been awarded sentence of death within 30 days to be computed from April 2, 2005, the date on which the sentence was pronounced. 11. The accused being dissatisfied with the judgment has filed the appeal and that the murder reference has been received by this Court for confirmation, in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the accused has taken us through the record by reading the FIR and the statements of the Doctros with specific reference to Dr. D.S. Rathi PW8 and statement of SI Dhan Singh PW9, Hari Shankar brother of Ramwati, who has appeared as PW13, Kali Charan father of Ramwati, who has appeared as PW 10, Naroti Lal another brother of Ramwati, who has appeared as PW12 and PW15 Krishan Lal brother-in-law of Ramwati (her sisters husband). Learned counsel has also made reference to the recovery memo Ex. PN regarding recovery of "DAAV", the pant, shirt and Rs. 10,000/- exhibited as Ex. PQ and also the pant and shirt of Bhupinder and Rs. 60,000/- as Ex. PT. He has also referred to the report of Chemical Examiner, which has been exhibited Ex. PE with a specific reference that Chemical Examiner has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution and that no grouping of the blood-stains is shown to have been carried out, which is conspicuous by absence in the Chemical report. 60,000/- as Ex. PT. He has also referred to the report of Chemical Examiner, which has been exhibited Ex. PE with a specific reference that Chemical Examiner has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution and that no grouping of the blood-stains is shown to have been carried out, which is conspicuous by absence in the Chemical report. He has also referred to the statement of Maha Devi who has appeared as PW2, who was declared as hostile witness and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Obviously, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel has made an effort to demolish the case of the prosecution by raising the plea of the absence of any "motive" on the part of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder for murdering Ramwati and Rahul. He has emphatically argued that the motive as culled out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the relations between Gopi Chand and Ramwati were strained, is not made out from any piece of evidence. In support of his contention, he has made reference to the statement of Kalicharan PW10, Hari Shanker, PW13. It has been pointed out that Kalicharan has categorically stated in his cross-examination that accused Gopi had borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from him. He has also admitted that information about the murder of Ramwati and her son had been given by the father of the accused Gopi Chand. He has also admitted that they did not made any complaint regarding the harassment of his daughter at the hands of Gopi. He has also admitted that funeral ceremonies were performed at Ballabhgarh where the parental house of Gopi Chand is situated. Hari Shanker PW13, has admitted that the police party had reached his house on 25.5.2003 at 5 p.m. and remained there for about two hours. He has also stated that the police had obtained his signatures upon 5-6 blank papers. He has also admitted that he had never visited the police station. Pointed reference has been made to the examination-in-chief, wherein it is recorded that the family of Ramwati had given a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused Gopi Chand about three months prior to the murder of his sister and her son Rahul. He has also admitted that he had never visited the police station. Pointed reference has been made to the examination-in-chief, wherein it is recorded that the family of Ramwati had given a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused Gopi Chand about three months prior to the murder of his sister and her son Rahul. In the cross-examination he has categorically stated that on May 25, 2003 the police had visited their village at about 6 p.m. and that they had told the police that their suspcision was towards the family members of Gopi Chand. It is on May 26, 2003, the police had arrested both the accused i.e. Gopi Chand and Bhupinder. 14. He has also referred to the statement of Naroti Lal brother of Ramwati, who has appeared as PW12, who has categorically admitted that he had given Rs. 50,000/- to Gopi Chand on credit basis for running his business. He has also admitted that they did not make any complaint regarding harassment of Ramwati at the hands of Gopi Chand, in any police station. He has stated that upon receipt of telephone call from the police, he along with his brother Hari Shankar, Bhagat Singh, Kalicharan, Bharat Singh Pardhan, Prem Singh, Bhuri Singh and Daulat Ram came to Ballabhgarh on May 27, 2003, which is stated to have been corrected and disclosed as May 26, 2003. He has categorically stated that the police had shown the blood-stained pant and shirt and cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and some weapon of iron wrapped in a cloth and stated that Gopi Chand and Bhupinder are the murderers of Ramwati and Rahul and that the articles mentioned are the same which belong to the accused. He has pointed out that as per the prosecution, the weapon of offence is stated to have been recovered on the disclosure statement Ex. PM made by Gopi Chand accused and in furtherance thereof, he had led the police party on May 27, 2003 to the place of concealment in Punjabiwara at Ballabhgarh, wherefrom he had, after pointing out, got recovered the Daav Ex. PN. It is not reconciliable that the prosecution witness Naroti Lal states that on May 26, 2003 the blood-stained pant, shirt and the cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the weapon was shown to them on 26.5.2003. PN. It is not reconciliable that the prosecution witness Naroti Lal states that on May 26, 2003 the blood-stained pant, shirt and the cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the weapon was shown to them on 26.5.2003. If that be so, how the disclosure statement could be recorded by the police as they had given Rs. 50,000/- to Gopi Chand on credit basis for running his business. He has also admitted that they did not make any complaint regarding harassment of Ramwati at the hands of Gopi Chand, in any police station. He has stated that upon receipt of telephone call from the police, he along with his brother Hari Shankar, Bhagat Singh, Kalicharan, Bharat Singh Pardhan, Prem Singh, Bhuri Singh and Daulat Ram came to Ballabhagrh on May 27, 2003, which is stated to have been corrected and disclosed as May 26, 2003. He has categorically stated that the police had shown the blood-stained pant and shirt and cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and some weapon of iron wrapped in a cloth and stated that Gopi Chand and Bhupinder are the murderer of Ramwati and Rahul and that the articles mentioned are the same which belong to the accused. He has pointed out that as per the prosecution, the weapon of offence is stated to have been recovered on the disclosure statement Ex. PM made by Gopi Chand accused and in furtherance thereof, he had led the police party on May 27, 2003 to the place of concealment in Punjabiwara at Ballabhgarh, wherefrom he had, after pointing out, got recovered the Daav Ex. PN. It is not reconciliable that the prosecution witness Naroti Lal states that on May 26, 2003 the blood-stained pant, shirt and the cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the weapon was shown to them on 26.5.2003. If that be so, how the disclosure statement could be recorded by the police as murdering his wife Ramwati and Rahul, in association with Bhupinder, is absolutely oblique and cannot be accepted. The motive has to be strong enough for murdering ones wife and son. No other circumstance or fact has been brought on record by the prosecution for substantiating the alleged motive against Gopi Chand and Bhupinder, for committing the offence of murder. 15. The motive has to be strong enough for murdering ones wife and son. No other circumstance or fact has been brought on record by the prosecution for substantiating the alleged motive against Gopi Chand and Bhupinder, for committing the offence of murder. 15. Learned counsel has further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has further fallen into error in placing reliance upon the alleged confession made by the accused before Bharat Singh, who has appeared as PW11. He has not supported the prosecution version. He had been declared hostile and has cross-examined by the public prosecutor. He has categorically stated that no panchayat was ever convened in his presence with regard to murder of Ramwati and her son Rahul. He further states that Gopi Chand and his brother- in-law Bhupinder had never come to him and they had never made any extra- judicial confession before him at any point of time. However, he has corroborated the fact that the prosecution witness Naroti, Hari Shanker, Daulat Ram and Kalicharan were present in the police station on 26.5.2003 when the SHO had shown the pant and shirt wrapped in the polythene to all of us. In his cross-examination he has categorically denied that he had ever made any statement that the accused Gopi Chand used to suspect the character of his wife Ramwati. He has also denied that at the time of cremation, the complainant party had ever indicated that they suspected involvement of Gopi Chand and his family members for having murdered Ramwati and her son Rahul. He has also denied that the accused Gopi Chand and his brother-in-law had ever come to his house and had stated that they made a false report in the police station for looting an amount of Rs. 70,000/-. He has also denied that any request was made by them for producing them before the police. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that it is borne out from the statement of Dhan Singh SI PW9 that he had gone to village Ali Nagar in U.P. on 25.5.2003 i.e. the place of residence of parents of deceased Ramwati. He has further stated that Hari Shanker produced before him a complaint raising doubt upon Gopi Chand i.e. husband husband of Ramwati. He has further stated that the statements of Kalicharan and Naroti Lal were recorded at that time. He has further stated that Hari Shanker produced before him a complaint raising doubt upon Gopi Chand i.e. husband husband of Ramwati. He has further stated that the statements of Kalicharan and Naroti Lal were recorded at that time. He has also stated that Bharat Singh PW11 had produced the accused before him while he was present at the police post of Samshahbad. He recorded the statement of Bharat Singh and arrested the accused on that day (This fact has been emphatically denied by Bharat Singh as has been noticed above). He has stated that the weapon was recovered on May 27, 2003 from the place pointed out by Gopi Chand and also the amount of Rs. 10,000/- at village Fatehbad District Agra (U.P.). He has further stated that on May 26, 2003, accused Bhupinder was interrogated and he suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PS, in which he has stated that he along with Gopi Chand had caused the murder of Ramwati and Rahul and that Gopi Chand had given him Rs. 60,000/- for associating him for committing the murder accordingly. He also stated that on return to the police station, he had deposited the case property with the MHC in the Malkhana. 17. Learned counsel for the accused has brought to our attention at this stage, the statement of HC Naresh Kumar PW18 to the effect that the articles which were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder are not shown to have been deposited with Head Constable Naresh Kumar as no other witness for proving the factum of depositing the said articles in the Malkhana has been brought on record by the prosecution. HC Naresh Kumar has categorically stated that on May 24, 2003, when he was posted at night as MHC in the Police Station Ballabhgarh, SI Dhan Singh had deposited with him the case property consisting of Pulandas containing clothes etc. of the deceased Ramwati and Rahul. However, he states that through the same RC No. 447 the clothes of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder were also simultaneously delivered in a duly sealed cover by him, to constable Surender, who in turn deposited the case property in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban on the same day. of the deceased Ramwati and Rahul. However, he states that through the same RC No. 447 the clothes of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder were also simultaneously delivered in a duly sealed cover by him, to constable Surender, who in turn deposited the case property in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban on the same day. The perusal of the statement does not corroborate the statement of Dhan Singh SI to the effect that the pant, shirt and Daav were deposited by him with MHC Naresh Kumar, however, no such statement has been made by Naresh Kumar or any other witness for deposing the fact of depositing the aforestated allegedly recovered articles and further depositing the same after they had been recovered on May 26, 2003. The statement of both the aforestated witnesses are irreconcilable because one witness i.e. Dhan Singh SI states that the recovery was made on May 26/27, 2003 whereas the MHC Naresh Kumar stated that the clothes of the accused Gopi Chand and Bhupinder were simultaneously delivered through the same RC No. 447. No explanation whatsoever has been rendered by any of the prosecution witnesses that the recovery so effected by Dhan Singh was duly deposited and converted into sealed parcels and was ever received by the official on duty at the Malkhana. 18. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the story of recovery of articles attributed to Gopi Chand and Bhupinder does not inspire confidence at all. The witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW11 Bharat Singh and PW13 Hari Shanker have stated that the articles i.e. pant and shirt and Daav were shown to all of them on May 26, 2003. If that be so, the story of recovery of these articles on May 27, 2003 at the instance of the accused would stand belied completely. The prosecution has not been able to make the link of the articles allegedly recovered in an appropriate manner as the gap which is missing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in this regard is very wide and, of course, untenable. 19. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that examining the story of the prosecution in totality, by which Gopi Chand husband and Bhupinder his brother-in-law have been charged for the offence of murder of Ramwati and her son Rahul (son of Gopi Chand) is under a serious doubt. 19. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that examining the story of the prosecution in totality, by which Gopi Chand husband and Bhupinder his brother-in-law have been charged for the offence of murder of Ramwati and her son Rahul (son of Gopi Chand) is under a serious doubt. In the first instance, when Gopi Chand had found at his house that his wife and son had been murdered, he went to the police station within hours and reported the same accordingly. There is no delay attributable to Gopi Chand, which could give birth to a doubt that perhaps Gopi Chand murdered his wife and son and thereafter consulted Bhupinder and reported the matter to put an iron cover around himself from being detected as murderer of his wife Ramwati and son Rahul. 20. He has further argued that the motive as spelt out by the prosecution that he used to harass his wife Ramwati as has been indicated by the father and the brothers, is not at all supported by any corroborative evidence. In fact, all of them have stated that no report in this regard was ever made in any police station nor any panchayat was called for sorting out the differences. In fact, all the witnesses have categorically stated that for helping him in his business a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to him on credit. Thus, no case is made out that he had ever demanded money as dowry for running his business. If such allegation of demand of dowry/harassment is accepted, the father and brothers of the deceased would not be stating that the amount was given on credit to Gopi Chand. 21. It is further the submission that no reason is forthcoming as to why a father would kill his own child, who is barely six years of age. The version of the prosecution is that he had been eliminated because he would be the lone eye-witness for the murder of Ramwati. This story is too much to be accepted. A six years old child is too small to understand these facts of life. The story of the amount being given to Bhupinder for associating himself with Gopi Chand for murdering his wife, is also not sustainable. In such case, the denomination would not be of Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 80,000/-, the figures are always round figures, it can be Rs. The story of the amount being given to Bhupinder for associating himself with Gopi Chand for murdering his wife, is also not sustainable. In such case, the denomination would not be of Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 80,000/-, the figures are always round figures, it can be Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1,00,000/- or such like figure. Apart from this, the prosecution has not been able to give foolproof linkage for the recovery of the said amount. The alleged recovery as made has not been substantiated as the stand submitted earlier in this regard that depositing such amount with HC Naresh Kumar is under a serious doubt. He does not talk of money at all and in his statement he is talking of pant and shift belonging to Gopi Chand and Bhupinder. 22. Learned counsel has further argued that the case of the prosecution suffers from not only legal infirmities but factual infirmities as well. It is too dangerous to believe the version of the prosecution or such like evidence for the purpose of awarding death sentence. In the first instance, the act of committing murder of Ramwati and her son Rahul has not been made out from the facts, which have been relied upon and disclosed by the prosecution. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon the statement of Maha Devi wife of Sham Lal, who is stated to be in the neighbourhood and who has stated that on May 23, 2003, Rahul son of Gopi Chand came to her house for taking ice and after taking the same he had gone back to his house. Apart from this, she does not know anything about the murder. She has denied that she had heard the crying noise of Ramwati or that Rahul was knocking at the door of her house or she had seen any blood coming in the Nali (drain) from the house of Gopi Chand. She had been declared a hostile witness and the public prosecutor has cross-examined her. She has categorically denied that she had heard the cries of Ramwati or that son of Gopi Chand ever knocked at the door of her house and she had heard the cries of younger son of Ramwati. She has also denied that she had seen Gopi Chand along with another person while coming out of their house. She has categorically denied that she had heard the cries of Ramwati or that son of Gopi Chand ever knocked at the door of her house and she had heard the cries of younger son of Ramwati. She has also denied that she had seen Gopi Chand along with another person while coming out of their house. Apart from this witness, no other witness has been produced by the prosecution for establishing the aforestated fact. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that in the vicinity except the house of Maha Devi, no other person resides. Thus, the story of the prosecution that Ramwati had raised cries when Gopi Chand had gone inside and had murdered her, stands belied. The story set up by the prosecution against the accused is nothing but an effort to cover up the inefficiency of the police in investigating the murder of Ramwati and her son Rahul for finding out the real murderer. The prosecution witnesses have not really supported the story of the prosecution as the same suffers from the missing links and the manner in which the recoveries have been effected and the articles allegedly deposited in the Malkhana. The inefficiency of the police cannot be allowed to be put under the rug and the false story for the purpose of roping the husband and his brother-in-law for having committed murder, be accepted. 23. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the prosecution has produced the relevant witnesses, who have categorically averred that Ramwati was harassed by Gopi Chand her husband as he was always wanting money for running his business. The articles had been duly recovered by the accused after suffering the disclosure statement and that the accused have been successful in winning over the crucial witnesses Maha Devi and Bharat Singh before whom the disclosure statements had been made by both the accused. So far as every harassment of the wife is concerned it is not necessary that the same should be reported to the police or the Panchayat should be there. Such acts are not committed sometimes for the best interest of the daughter of the house. 24. So far as every harassment of the wife is concerned it is not necessary that the same should be reported to the police or the Panchayat should be there. Such acts are not committed sometimes for the best interest of the daughter of the house. 24. Learned counsel has further argued that Dhan Singh SI had investigated the matter deeply and had gone to the village of the parents of Ramwati, where he recorded the statements of the brothers as well as the father, who had disclosed the facts accordingly. It has been proved beyond any doubt that Gopi Chand accused was in need of money and he was paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose. The parents of the deceased had in fact been informed that Rahul had suddenly developed eye ailment and, therefore, was in a serious condition, whereupon, all of them reached Ballabhgarh, where they discovered that Ramwati and her son had been murdered. It has been further argued that Rahul, who is stated to be six years of age, was eliminated by Gopi Chand and Bhupinder as the six years old child is quite conscious and would be able to point the finger at the accused. The accused have set up a story approaching the police station at the earliest so that accusing finger may not come on to them for the real act of murder having been committed by them. The accused are very shrewd and intelligent and, therefore, have acted in a manner where the doubt cannot or would not come on to them. The fact that Gopi Chand or the family did not press for the investigation for the purpose of apprehending the alleged dacoits, who are stated to have allegedly killed Ramwati and Rahul. Not even a single word has come from the accused that they had requested for the proper investigation so that the culprits could be brought to book. The trial Court has correctly relied upon the statement of Dhan Singh S.I. and has placed reliance upon the recoveries made accordingly. It has been further argued that RC No. 447 is dated 4.6.2003, therefore, disclosure statement made on May 26, 2003 and the recoveries effected accordingly on 27.5.2003 and delivery of the same to HC Naresh Kumar, cannot be ruled out as the articles had been duly produced in Court and after opening the parcels were duly exhibited. It has been further argued that RC No. 447 is dated 4.6.2003, therefore, disclosure statement made on May 26, 2003 and the recoveries effected accordingly on 27.5.2003 and delivery of the same to HC Naresh Kumar, cannot be ruled out as the articles had been duly produced in Court and after opening the parcels were duly exhibited. 25. It has been further argued that so far as the blood-stains upon Daav are concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that a weapon once used, an intelligent accused as before this Court, would wipe out the same so that the link becomes inadmissible. However, the disclosure statement and the recovery of the weapon cannot be lost sight of. Thus, the trial Court correctly held the accused guilty of the charge of murder of Ramwati and Rahul and further correctly awarded the death sentence. 26. We have heard learned counsel at length and have also perused the evidence brought on record as the same was read out to us in Court by both the learned counsel by pointing out the relevant portions thereof. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused as the story of the prosecution suffers from the infirmities :- 1. Motive 27 The only motive which has been spelt out by the prosecution against the accused is that Gopi Chand and Ramwati did not enjoy good relations amongst themselves. The evidence in this regard brought by the prosecution is in the shape of statements of Kalicharan PW10, Hari Shankar PW13 and Naroti Lal PW12. The perusal of their evidence shows that except for the bald statement that Gopi Chand used to harass Ramwati neither any incident nor any action on the part of Gopi Chand has been disclosed by any one. In fact, they have admitted that no such complaint was ever made in any police station nor any panchayat was convened in this regard. In fact they have further gone to state that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to Gopi Chand on credit basis for running his business. No independent witness has been produced from the vicinity where Ramwati was residing for corroborating the fact of Ramwati being harassed by Gopi Chand. There is nothing in writing which was ever received by the police from Ramwati in this regard. 50,000/- was given to Gopi Chand on credit basis for running his business. No independent witness has been produced from the vicinity where Ramwati was residing for corroborating the fact of Ramwati being harassed by Gopi Chand. There is nothing in writing which was ever received by the police from Ramwati in this regard. It is not clear as to whether Ramwati was an educated person or not. De hors this, an illiterate person placed under such circumstances and being put to such harassment would always request someone to write such communication but no such evidence has come on record. Thus, accepting this as a motive against Gopi Chand for murdering his wife would be too dangerous, especially in view of the fact that a child was born from the wedlock, who is of the age of six years and then there is a younger child of about 2-1/2 years of age, meaning thereby that they have produced the child only 2-1/2 years ago and that the question of acute differences would not arise. However, this cannot be accepted as a sole ground for dismissing the harassment if the same is corroborated from the other independent circumstances, which, in this case are absent. Thus, the trial Court has erred in accepting this as a motive for the murder of Ramwati and Rahul by Gopi Chand in association with Bhupinder. 2.Confession 28. Confessional statement before Bharat Singh PW11, which has been introduced by the prosecution for the purpose that Gopi Chand and Bhupinder had come to him and that they had disclosed that they had given wrong story to the police, is not sustainable. In fact that witness had been declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to spell out as to why the accused would go to Bharat Singh for making such kind of statement in the first instance. This statement was probably procured by the prosecution for the purpose of making an effort to establish the foolproof case against the accused. The effort was to create link evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed in this regard. The prosecution has not been able to spell out the relationship of Bharat Singh with the accused. Confessional statements must fulfill the basic ingredients to be accepted as a base for the alleged facts gathered by the prosecution. The effort was to create link evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed in this regard. The prosecution has not been able to spell out the relationship of Bharat Singh with the accused. Confessional statements must fulfill the basic ingredients to be accepted as a base for the alleged facts gathered by the prosecution. It could be understandable if it was the case of the prosecution that Bharat Singh was the close confidant of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder and, therefore, it was very logical that both of them would go to Bharat Singh and make such kind of confessional statement. Obviously when this witness stepped into the witness box before the trial Court, he realised that telling lies might get him into some kind of difficulty. Resultantly, he deposed in a pure and simple manner. De hors this, the prosecution has not been able to establish the circumstances under which the accused would go and make such confessional statement before Bahrain Singh (Bharat Singh ?). Thus, the basis of the prosecution for establishing the guilt against the accused cannot be said to be made out on the basis of the alleged confessional statement. This stand of the prosecution deserves to be rejected. 3. Recoveries 29. The story of recoveries as put up by the prosecution suffers from the continuity of link evidence. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the pant, shirt and the weapon, allegedly used by Gopi Chand, were shown to them on 26.5.2003 and that signatures upon 5-6 blank papers had been obtained by the police. It is not understandable how the disclosure statement can be said to have been made by the accused when they are stated to have been arrested on 26.5.2003. From the record it is borne out that the disclosures are recorded on 27.5.2003. It is not understandable how the disclosure statement can be said to have been made by the accused when they are stated to have been arrested on 26.5.2003. From the record it is borne out that the disclosures are recorded on 27.5.2003. Further, HC Naresh Kumar, who is stated to be posted in the police station Ballabhgarh as Malkhana Incharge, has stated that the clothes of Ramwati and Rahul were deposited by Dhan Singh on 24.5.2003 but he does not make any statement for corroborating the statement of Dhan Singh that the articles recovered on 26/27.5.2003 were also deposited by him in the Malkhana in his presence though he states that under RC No. 447 the articles - pant and shirt of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder - were delivered to constable Surender, who had delivered the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 4.6.2003. The delivery of such articles, the receipt of which has not been established, creates a doubt in our mind the manner in which the prosecution has dealt with the delivery of such articles. 30. We have also considered the fact that the Chemical (sic) the report which has been exhibited as Ex. PE, which indicates thqat the blood found on clothes of Gopi Chand and Bhupinder is that of a human-being but there is no indication of grouping of the blood. It is the admitted case that Chemical Examiner has not stepped into the witness box nor the grouping of the blood was carried out for the purpose of linking the alleged blood on the clothes of Gopi Chand with that of Ramwati and/or Rahul. 31. Further, the statement of MHC Naresh Kumar does not disclose the receipt of money, as indicated by Dhan Singh SI. If it is accepted that the same was made into a parcel and was delivered to Naresh Kumar, it shall be too much to be accepted because in the Malkhana also the concerned official is expected to verify to contents of the parcel so that tomorrow he may not get into difficulty himself. No such act is stated to have been carried out by MHC. It may not be necessary, provided the attesting persons would also corroborate the contents being submitted to the Malkhana but nothing has been disclosed by the prosecution in this regard. 32. No such act is stated to have been carried out by MHC. It may not be necessary, provided the attesting persons would also corroborate the contents being submitted to the Malkhana but nothing has been disclosed by the prosecution in this regard. 32. In view of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive against the accused and have also failed to establish the link evidence with some evidence brought on record vis-a-vis the recoveries, the accused cannot be accepted and termed as the murderers of Ramwati and Rahul. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the relations of Ramwati, father and brothers etc. who had come for the cremation at Ballabhgarh where the parental house of Gopi Chand is situated. The parental family had not indicated to anyone that their doubt is on Gopi Chand. Why would they wait for two days for making a complaint against Gopi Chand and his brother-in-law Bhupinder. If the story of harassment is accepted for the sake of argument then on May 23, 2003, itself the relations of Ramwati would have reported the matter to the police authorities but in this case Dhan Singh goes to the village of the parents of Ramwati on 25.3.2005, i.e. after two days of the occurrence and is stated to have received a complaint and then he records the statements accordingly. This version of the prosecution does not inspire confidence further and cannot be termed as the link evidence for holding Gopi Chand and Bhupinder guilty of the charge of murder. After giving due consideration and pondering over the matter and after sharing our minds we are of the considered view and opinion that the story of the prosecution suffers from the infirmities and, therefore, cannot be accepted as the correct version for establishing the charge of murder against Gopi Chand and Bhupinder. There is no doubt nothing has come on record that any effort was made by Gopi Chand for following the investigation in regard to the real murderer. This argument is a very weak argument as the police went after Gopi Chand and Bhupinder holding them liable for the murder of Ramwati and Rahul. In such a situation they both probably went under the fear psychosis and, therefore, could not even think of asking the police authorities to make the investigation. This argument is a very weak argument as the police went after Gopi Chand and Bhupinder holding them liable for the murder of Ramwati and Rahul. In such a situation they both probably went under the fear psychosis and, therefore, could not even think of asking the police authorities to make the investigation. In the first instance Gopi Chand had approached the police station for making the statement that his wife and his child have been murdered and also the theft of money, which he had brought himself. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the acceptance of the appeal, the Murder Reference is rejected. It is not necessary for us to give our mind upon the order passed by the trial Court vide which the opportunity of being heard had been granted to the accused for awarding the death sentence. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.