Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. This appeal, by Mahavir accused/appellant, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.2.2003 and order of sentence dated 19.2.2003, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Tract Court, Sonepat, whereby he was convicted under Sections 302/201/202/203 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of two months u/s 201 I.P.C., and to under go R.I. for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month under Section 202 I.P.C., and also to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for a period of two months under Section 203 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story, as initially described and established by the witnesses, is as follows :- 3. Jagbir complainant (PW-1) and accused/appellant Mahavir, are real brothers. Their father Kapur Singh had died in the year 1998. Mahavir was living with his wife Bimla, who was also an accused in this case, at his native village Bhainswal Kalan, whereas Jagbir was working as Welder Grade-I in Termal Power Plant, at Panipat, so, he was living there with his wife and children. Relations between Mahavir and his mother Smt. Dharam Kaur (75 years), since deceased and sisters Ram Rati (PW-2) and Murti Devi (PW-3) were not cordial. They even were not on visiting terms to the house of Mahavir. Smt. Dharam Kaur was living with her other son Jagbir (complainant) at Panipat for the last about 15 years. She was getting a pension to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. 4. It was on 12.5.2000 that Mukesh son of accused/appellant Mahavir had gone to the house of Jagbir at Panipat and he had taken Dharam Kaur with him and brought her to village Bhainswal Kalan. Jagbir also used to enquire about her well-being from time to time when she was staying there at village Bhainswal Kalan. 2,500/- p.m. 4. It was on 12.5.2000 that Mukesh son of accused/appellant Mahavir had gone to the house of Jagbir at Panipat and he had taken Dharam Kaur with him and brought her to village Bhainswal Kalan. Jagbir also used to enquire about her well-being from time to time when she was staying there at village Bhainswal Kalan. It was on 27.8.2000 that Smt. Dharam Kaur disappeared and on enquiry made by Jagbir, Mahavir told that the mother had taken an amount of Rs. 100/- as fare from him (Mahavir) for going to attend a religious congregation (Sat Sang) and from there, she had also to go to the house of her brother situated at village Khadwali and to that effect, an information was also given to Police Station, Sadar Gohana, on 23.9.2000. 5. When Smt. Dharam Kaur could not be traced out, Jagbir (PW-1) her other son made a complaint Ex.PA dated 2.11.2000, to the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat to the effect that Smt. Dharam Kaur, his mother was taken to village Bhainsawal Kalan by Mukesh on 12.5.2000 and he was last seen in the said village on 27.8.2000 and that then she had been killed on 28.8.2000 by appellant Mahavir, his wife Bimla and son Mukesh and that they had been misleading him (Jagbir) by putting-forth the aforesaid concocted version. The said complaint Ex.PA ultimately reached to the S.H.O., Police Station, Sadar Gohana, for taking legal action in the matter. It is with the aforesaid background that FIR No. 198 dated 4.11.2000 (Ex. PA/1) was recorded under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by ASI Rajiv Kumar. Appellant was arrested in this case on 4.11.2000. Upon interrogation by ASI Rajiv Kumar, he made disclosure statements Exs. PD and PJ recorded on the same day, wherein he admitted to have committed the murder of this mother Smt. Dharam Kaur. 6. Motive behind the murder was that the appellant has made his mother Smt. Dharam Kaur to withdraw a sum of Rs. 32,000/- from her account and he then retained the said amount with him. Since from the month of August, 2000, she (Smt. Dharam Kaur) started insisting to return that amount to her, as she wanted to go back to her son Jagbir Singh (complainant). It was also disclosed by the appellant in his disclosure statement Ex. 32,000/- from her account and he then retained the said amount with him. Since from the month of August, 2000, she (Smt. Dharam Kaur) started insisting to return that amount to her, as she wanted to go back to her son Jagbir Singh (complainant). It was also disclosed by the appellant in his disclosure statement Ex. PD that on 27.8.2000, he alongwith his friend Jagbir accused (since acquitted), consumed liquor and then strangulated his mother Smt. Dharam Kaur. Thereafter, he had brought a match box from his wife Smt. Bimla accused (since acquitted). After that, he poured kerosene on the dead body of his mother Smt. Dharam Kaur and set the same on fire. Then the burnt dead body was put in a gunny bag and burried the same in the room which was used for tethering cattle. In pursuance of his aforesaid disclosure statement Ex. PD before ASI Rajiv Kumar, the appellant got recovered the dead body of his mother in the presence of Sh. Sanjay Bishnoi, Naib Tehsildar and Dr. I.S. Punia, Jagbir complainant and Jagdish PWs. In pursuance of his aforesaid disclosure statements Ex. PD the appellant also got recovered a spade Ex. P-1, gunny bag Ex. P-2, and pass books Exs. P-3 and P-4 and then the said articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PJ/1. The dead body was also got post mortemed by Dr. Basant Lal (PW-18) vide his report Ex. PX. Other two accused in this case, namely, Smt. Bimla and Jagbir were also arrested on 6.11.2000 by Inspector Ram Dhan. After completion of formal investigation of this case, the appellant and two other accused, namely Jagbir Singh son of Rai Singh and Bimla wife of the appellant were challaned for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201 I.P.C. After that charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against appellant Mahavir and Jagbir, (Jagbir since acquitted), under Section 302 IPC against Mahavir, under Section 302 IPC against Jagbir, under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against, Mahavir, Jagbir and Bimla (Bimla since acquitted), under Section 202 IPC against Bimla (since acquitted), under Section 202 read with Section 34 IPC against Mahavir, Jagbir and Bimla (Jagbir and Bimla since acquitted), under Section 203 IPC against Mahavir appellant respectively, were framed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 4.4.2001, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. 7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 19 witnesses, namely PW-1 Jagbir complainant, he is real brother of appellant Mahavir; PW-2 and PW-3 Ram Rati and Murti Devi, daughters of the deceased; PW-4 Om Parkash, he is a formal witness; PW-5 Sanjay Bishnoi, Naib Tehsildar, in whose presence dead body was recovered; PW-6 MHC Sukhbir Singh, he produced DDR No. 6 dated 23.9.2000 (Ex., PH); PW-7 ASI Narain Singh, in whose presence, the appellant had made a disclosure statements Exs. PD and PJ, he is also a witness to the recoveries Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4; PW-8 HC Ranbir Singh, with whom, the case property was deposited by Investigating Officer; PW-9 Karambir, he deposited the case property with PW-6 - MHC Sukhbir Singh; PW-10 Constable Jagbir Singh, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PN; PW-11 Jage Ram and PW- 12 Jagdish, they both are the witnesses to the recovery of dead body; PW-13 A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case; PW-14 Narbhav Singh, a photographer, he proved photographs Exs. P-5 to P-11 and negatives thereof Exs. P-12 to P-18; PW-15 SI Rajinder Kumar, he submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C; PW-16 Inspector Ram Dhan, he had arrested accused Bimla and Jagbir (since acquitted in this case); PW-17 Dr. Jagdish Rao, he proved the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PV; PW-18 Dr. Basant Lal, who had conducted the post mortem on the dead of Smt. Dharam Kaur vide his report Ex. PX and PW-19 Dr. I.S. Punia, he is a witness to the recovery of the dead body. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined in terms of their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the prosecution allegations in toto. However, no defence was led. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, acquitted accused Jagbir and Bimla of the charges framed against them but convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material brought on the file. 9. The only point of argument raised by Mr. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material brought on the file. 9. The only point of argument raised by Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant is that the case in hand is of `no evidence against the appellant. In that, he vehemently made reference to the material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagbir, PW-2 Ram Rati and PW-3 Murti Devi, who are also son and daughters, respectively, of the deceased Smt. Dharam Kaur. None of the aforesaid witnesses has stated a word against the appellant, who is also their real brother. At the fag end of his argument, the learned counsel also made a reference to the statements of PW-11 Jage Ram and PW-12 Jagdish and then contended that they being the witnesses to the disclosure statements and the recovery got made in pursuance thereof, have also not uttered a word against the appellant. Learned counsel further referred to the place of recovery of dead body and submitted that in the instant case, the dead body could not be identified by any of the witnesses. Thus, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. A.G., appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, read out the contents of the FIR, which was recorded on the basis of Ex. PA, a complaint made by PW-1 Jagbir, complainant. He also then made reference to the statements of Sanjay Bishnoi, Naib Tehsildar PW-5 and Dr. I.S. Punia PW-19, in whose presence, dead-body of Smt. Dharam Kaur, was recovered. At the end, he submitted that there are circumstances of murder in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, which indicate that it was the appellant, who had committed the murder of his mother on 28.8.2000. 11. I.S. Punia PW-19, in whose presence, dead-body of Smt. Dharam Kaur, was recovered. At the end, he submitted that there are circumstances of murder in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, which indicate that it was the appellant, who had committed the murder of his mother on 28.8.2000. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions put- forth on behalf of the parties and find that the points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant are not devoid of merit inasmuch as, a close scrutiny of the evidence consisted in the statements of material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagbir, PW-2 Ram Rati, PW-3 Murti Devi, PW-11 Jage Ram and PW-12 Jagdish, goes a long way to show that there is not an iota of incriminating evidence appearing against the appellant. In fact, they all have resiled from their earlier statements made before the Investigating Officer, and nothing fruitful could be elicited from their mouth during their cross-examination, which could favour the case of the prosecution. No doubt, dead body of Smt. Dharam Kaur was recovered in the presence of Sanjay Bishnoi, Naib Tehsildar and Dr. I.S. Punia, but according to them, the said dead body was, in fact, a skeleton, which was exhumed from cattle shed of one Maha Singh. According to PW-18 Dr. Basant Lal, who had conducted the post mortem, a skeletonised body was received in a box emitting foul smell. Skin was missing all over the body. No fracture was seen in skull and no ante mortem injury was seen in the available bones. Further, according to the site plan prepared at the time of conducting the inquest report Ex. PU, dead body is shown to have been exhumed from the buffaloes room of Jagbir son of Rai Singh, accused (since acquitted in this case), whereas a perusal of the evidence as discussed above, goes a long way to show that dead body of Smt. Dharam Kaur, was not recovered from the cattle-shed of the appellant, as set up by the prosecution. Further, it is also established fact that the dead-body was not at all identifiable. In fact, that was a skelton, which was sent for post mortem examination, conducted by PW-18 Dr. Basant Lal. Further, it is also established fact that the dead-body was not at all identifiable. In fact, that was a skelton, which was sent for post mortem examination, conducted by PW-18 Dr. Basant Lal. According to PW-13 ASI Rajiv Kumar, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, he had no personal knowledge regarding the ownership of the cattle-shed from where the dead-body was recovered. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not verified the factum of ownership from any other person. All this goes a long way to show that he had conducted the investigation of this case in a very casual manner. In the totality of the given facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. In the result, this appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No., 232-DB of 2003, succeeds and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside. Consequently, by giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He be released forth-with, if not required in any other case.