ARUNA SURESH, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is the outcome of judgment on conviction dated 11. 5. 2000, whereby appellants Ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surinder were convicted for having committed offence under Section 302/34 read with Section 120-B of the indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. After giving opportunity of submitting on sentence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi was pleased to sentence both the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of the payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Appellant Ranjeet Singh was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION had filed charge sheet against appellant Ranjeet Singh and suraj @ Surinder and their co-accused Robin Jolly. Robin Jolly was discharged vide order dated 15. 4. 1998 as the learned Trial Judge did not find any prima facie case for framing of charge against him. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant/ convict Suraj @ Surinder expired on 2. 9. 2003, therefore, his appeal on his death stands abated. ( 3 ) ON 28. 10. 1997 deceased Kashmir Singh was the driver of DTC Bus No. DL 1p 9578, of BBM Depot, route No. 81, i. e. from Mukherjee Nagar to Karam Pura. Om Prakash was the conductor of the said DTC bus. At about 10. 00 p. m. driver kashmir Singh (victim) along with conductor Om Prakash took the last trip of the bus from Shakti Nagar to Mukherjee Baandh. Conductor Om Prakash along with kashmir Singh was sitting in the bus, when appellant Ranjeet Singh along with suraj @ Surinder came there in a white Ambassador car driven by Robin Jolly (since discharged in this case ). Ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surinder boarded the dtc bus of Kashmir Singh and invited him to take liquor with them outside the bus, to which he refused. Since Ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surinder insisted, kashmir Singh called other drivers and conductors. On this Conductor Satpal singh (PW-1), Conductor Sri Pal (PW-2) and Driver Vijay Kumar (PW-9) went to the bus of Kashmir Singh. Satpal Singh (PW-1) and Sri Pal (PW-2) boarded the bus. At the instance of Ranjeet Singh, Kashmir Singh took the bus near Miglani Hotel and stopped it. On this Conductor Satpal singh (PW-1), Conductor Sri Pal (PW-2) and Driver Vijay Kumar (PW-9) went to the bus of Kashmir Singh. Satpal Singh (PW-1) and Sri Pal (PW-2) boarded the bus. At the instance of Ranjeet Singh, Kashmir Singh took the bus near Miglani Hotel and stopped it. While getting down from the front gate of the bus, Ranjeet singh took out a pistol and shot at the chest of Kashmir Singh and got down from the bus and ran away. Suraj @ Surinder also ran towards the side of BBM depot. PW Harnam Singh and other persons of the public apprehended Suraj @ surinder. While running away, Ranjeet Singh appellant fired bullet from his pistol towards an unknown person (deceased Devinder Kumar), who tried to stop him. Both Kashmir Singh and Devinder Kumar succumbed to the bullet injuries. They were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where they were declared brought dead. On the complaint of Om Prakash, conductor of the bus in question No. DL 1p 9578, fir of this case was registered. Investigating Officer recovered the pistol and one empty cartridge from near the front gate of the bus and another empty cartridge along with live cartridge from behind the bus, which were exhibited during the investigation of the case and after investigation filed the charge sheet in the Court. ( 4 ) FOLLOWING charges were framed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge on 15. 4. 98 against the accused:-I, K. C. Lohia, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi do hereby charge you (1)Ranjeet Singh s/o Bakshish Singh and (2) Suraj Sharma s/o Ashok Sharma as under:- Firstly That on 28. 10. 97 at about 10. 25 pm at Banda Bahadur Marg Road, Indira Vihar , Opp. Sessions judge on 15. 4. 98 against the accused:-I, K. C. Lohia, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi do hereby charge you (1)Ranjeet Singh s/o Bakshish Singh and (2) Suraj Sharma s/o Ashok Sharma as under:- Firstly That on 28. 10. 97 at about 10. 25 pm at Banda Bahadur Marg Road, Indira Vihar , Opp. Miglani Hotel in furtherance of the common intention of you both did commit murders by intentionally or knowingly causing the deaths of Kashmira Singh, the bus driver in DTC Bus No. DL-1p-9578 of Route No. 81 and of Devender Kumar, near Indira Vihar , dtc Bus Stop, within the jurisdiction of P. S. Mukerjee Nagar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court; Secondly That you Ranjeet Singh on the abovesaid date, time and place were found in unlawful possession of a pistol alongwith one live cartridge and two empty cartridges which were recovered from the spot and you used the same for unlawful purpose, i. e. for committing the murder of Kashmira Singh and Devender Kumar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 25/27 of the Arms Act and within the cognizance of this court And I hereby direct that you both be tried by this Court for the abovesaid charges. Sd /- 15. 4. 98 addl. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI The appellants denied the charges framed against them and pleaded not guilty. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION in all has examined 36 witnesses in support of its case. Satpal Singh (PW-1), Siri Pal (PW-2) and Om Prakash (PW-3) complainant, are all witnesses to the incident. They are all conductors of DTC. All these three witnesses admitted their presence at the spot at the time of incident. Unfortunately, all these three witnesses turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution case. ( 6 ) SATPAL Singh (PW-1) denied even having boarded the bus which started from Mukerjee Baand towards Camp. He did not identify the persons who got down from the car and boarded the bus driven by Kashmir Singh. He did not identify Ranjeet Singh as one of the assailants. Similarly, Sripal in tune with Satpal Singh has deposed that he did not see those 4-5 persons who had been making enquiry about Kashmir Singh, having boarded the bus. He denied having seen any incident with Kashmir Singh. He did not identify Ranjeet Singh as one of the assailants. Similarly, Sripal in tune with Satpal Singh has deposed that he did not see those 4-5 persons who had been making enquiry about Kashmir Singh, having boarded the bus. He denied having seen any incident with Kashmir Singh. He has also not identified Ranjeet Singh as one of the assailants. ( 7 ) OM Parkash (PW-3) while corroborating the prosecution story on material particulars turned hostile regarding the incident which took place near miglani Hotel. He deposed that when bus reached near Indira Vihar, he got down to buy a pouch of Tobacco at the instance of Kashmir Singh and he heard the screams of 'goli Maar Di, Goli Maar Di' repeatedly, but he denied having seen ranjeet Singh firing at Kashmir Singh. He showed his inability to identify the two persons who had boarded the bus. ( 8 ) VIJAY Kumar (PW-9) DTC driver also admits his presence at the mukerjee Baandh on the fateful night, but has denied having seen any incident taking place. He even denied having seen deceased, Kashmir Singh at Mukerjee baandh. ( 9 ) EVEN their lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP for the state could not make these witnesses spell out the truth regarding the identity of the appellants as assailants. It is pertinent to mention here that Om parkash went to the extent of saying that his statement Ex. PW-3/a was neither read over to him by the police nor he had read it before signing it. He had signed number of documents at the instance of police, but he did not know contents of any of those documents. It is really astonishing that all the eye witnesses to the incident admitted their presence at the spot, but denied having witnessed the incident of two murders and even the identity of the appellants as the persons who had boarded the bus of Kashmir Singh, before he and another person Devender Kumar were shot at and killed. ( 10 ) AS the prosecution story goes, both the assailants Ranjeet singh and Suraj @ Surender were apprehended at the spot. Devender Kumar (PW-5)in his statement on oath did admit that on the fateful night at about 10. 30 P. M. he was going towards Indira Vihar to meet a friend of his. He saw crowd of people at Indira Vihar. Devender Kumar (PW-5)in his statement on oath did admit that on the fateful night at about 10. 30 P. M. he was going towards Indira Vihar to meet a friend of his. He saw crowd of people at Indira Vihar. He found police also standing there. He also admitted having made some enquiries and came to know that some dispute had taken place, but then he did not support the prosecution case that he had apprehended Ranjeet singh while running away with a pistol in his hand. His cross examination by the learned APP for the State could not bring out any fruitful results. This witness admits his signature on the sketch of the pistol Ex. PW-3/c, but has gone to state that his signatures were obtained by the police on the pretext that some formalities were to be completed. ( 11 ) DALJIT Singh (PW-8) is another person who had helped the police party in apprehending Ranjeet Singh. He does admit his presence at the spot and also having seen few persons of the police and the public. He is totally hostile and is of no help to the prosecution. As already pointed out above, devender Kumar (PW-5) another witness to the apprehension of Ranjeet Singh is also completely hostile. ( 12 ) HEAD Constable Sajjan Pal (PW-7) had reached the spot along with Constable Joginder Singh at about 10. 30 p. m. on seeing a crowd near Miglani hotel and on hearing the shouts 'dtc KE DRIVER KO GOLI MAAR DI'. He along with constable Joginder Singh followed the public towards Indira Vihar. When he and constable Joginder Singh reached near House No. 339, Indira Vihar, he saw public giving beatings to some person, who later on, he came to know, had shot at the driver. He identified the appellant Ranjeet Singh as the said person. As per his testimony Ranjeet Singh was held by one Devinder and another person and he along with Constable Joginder Singh went towards Miglani Hotel and found Suraj @ surender having been caught by PW Harnam Singh. ( 13 ) HEAD Constable Sajjan Pal also did not fully support the prosecution case. According to the prosecution he was an eye witness to the second shooting incident that is appellant Ranjeet Singh having fired at devender Kumar while running away inside Indira Vihar colony. ( 13 ) HEAD Constable Sajjan Pal also did not fully support the prosecution case. According to the prosecution he was an eye witness to the second shooting incident that is appellant Ranjeet Singh having fired at devender Kumar while running away inside Indira Vihar colony. He has not corroborated the prosecution version regarding the apprehension of Ranjeet Singh by him with the assistance of PWs Devender Kumar and Daljit Singh. When cross-examined by the defence counsel for the appellant, Head Constable Sajjan Pal deposed that Ranjeet Singh did not fire in his presence. He denied having made statement to the Station House Officer that while running Ranjeet Singh fired a shot on a person standing at the bus stop near Indira Vihar. Head Constable sajjan Pal even as a police official has made irresponsible statement contradicting himself when examined in chief, cross examined by APP and cross examined by learned defence counsel. According to him he did not see any other thing except the collection of crowd when he reached the spot and saw accused ranjeet Singh for the first time in the hospital and not at the place of incident nor he saw public giving him beatings. He changed his statement and said, public was beating a person whom he did not see. He has been blowing hot and cold at the same time. Under these circumstances his testimony becomes unworthy of reliance. ( 14 ) CONSTABLE Joginder Singh (PW-10) was present at the spot along with Head Constable Sajjan Pal (PW-7) on 28. 10. 1997 at about 10. 30 p. m. at BBM road, when he came to know that a DTC driver had been murdered in the bus. When he along with Head Constable Sajjan Pal went towards Miglani Hotel they saw a person running after committing murder and people were chasing him and were shouting 'pakro PAKRO'. While running, the said person again committed murder of another person near bus stop Indira Vihar. He with the help of Head constable Sajjan Pal over-powered the said person, who was having a pistol in his hand. He did snatch the pistol from the hand of that person. He identified Ranjeet Singh as the person, who was apprehended by them. While running, the said person again committed murder of another person near bus stop Indira Vihar. He with the help of Head constable Sajjan Pal over-powered the said person, who was having a pistol in his hand. He did snatch the pistol from the hand of that person. He identified Ranjeet Singh as the person, who was apprehended by them. ( 15 ) SIGNIFICANTLY, even Constable Joginder Singh resiled during his cross-examination and deposed that he could not see as to who had fired and at whom because of darkness. He had only heard the firing sound. He also denied having snatched the pistol from Ranjeet Singh. He had seen Ranjeet Singh for the first time when the public had caught hold of him and was giving beatings to him. With the permission of the Court the learned APP again cross-examined the witness, in view of his cross examination by counsel for the accused, but in this cross examination by the APP he has deposed that his statement recorded on 8. 1. 99 to the effect that he has snatched the pistol from ranjeet Singh was not correct. But admitted that he had seen Ranjeet Singh running away with a pistol in his hand. When further cross examined by the defence counsel he deposed that he could not identify the person who was having pistol in his hand as there was darkness. It was Sajjan Pal who caught hold of that person from front side and he caught hold of him from the back side. He had not seen the pistol in the hand of accused Ranjeet Singh when he apprehended him. ( 16 ) THIS witness, who also happens to be a police official has demolished his own statement in examination-in-chief, during his cross-examination. All other police officials are formal witnesses except the investigating Officer who is also a witness to the recovery of weapon of offence that is the pistol. ( 17 ) FROM the evidence as discussed above, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of direct evidence that is eye witnesses or the witnesses who chased the convicts that is Ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surender and apprehended them at the spot. Prosecution, therefore, has miserably failed to establish the identity of the appellants as assailants. Prosecution, therefore, has miserably failed to establish the identity of the appellants as assailants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as discussed above, to our mind, are trustworthy nor their testimonies are found credible. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that even the recovery of the pistol Ex. P1, two empty cartridges recovered from the spot Ex. P2 and P3 and live cartridge Ex. P4 is doubtful in view of the contradictory testimony of police officials who are witnesses to the recovery of the pistol and empty cartridges as well as live cartridge. He has pointed out towards various discrepancies and contradictory statements which have crept in the statement of Head Constable Sajjan Pal, Constable Joginder and the Investigating officer Inspector Jagtar Singh. ( 19 ) HEAD Constable Sajjan Pal (PW-7) had stated on oath that he was told by Constable Joginder Singh that a pistol had been recovered from Ranjeet singh by him and in the meantime Station House Officer along with other police officials came there and he was sent by the Station House Officer to Hindu Rao hospital. The pistol was handed over to the Station House Officer. He has also deposed that one empty cartridge was recovered from near the front gate of the bus on the road and one empty cartridge was recovered from the back side a little far of the bus and another live cartridge was recovered from behind the bus. While identifying the pistol and the recovered empty and live cartridges, head Constable Sajjan Pal resiled from his statement and deposed that pistol was not recovered from the hand of Ranjeet Singh in his presence by Constable joginder. He denied even having made statement to the Investigating Officer to that effect. ( 20 ) WE find the statement of Constable Joginder Singh (PW-10) to the contrary. Constable Joginder did not state that he had snatched the pistol from the hand of Ranjeet Singh. In the cross-examination he denied having snatched the pistol from Ranjeet Singh. According to him Sajjan Pal had given the pistol to him and he did not see from whom Sajjan Pal had snatched the pistol. He had in turn given pistol to the Station House Officer, later on. According to him he had not seen any pistol in the hand of Ranjeet Singh. According to him Sajjan Pal had given the pistol to him and he did not see from whom Sajjan Pal had snatched the pistol. He had in turn given pistol to the Station House Officer, later on. According to him he had not seen any pistol in the hand of Ranjeet Singh. There is no other independent witness to the recovery of pistol from the hand of ranjeet Singh. Rest of the public witnesses are hostile and did not even identify the appellants as the assailants. Under these circumstances it is not known as to who had snatched the pistol from, or if at all was snatched by any of these two witnesses from the hands of Ranjeet Singh. Therefore, even the recovery of pistol from appellant Ranjeet Singh becomes doubtful. ( 21 ) THINGS do not end here. We find lot of contradictions in the testimonies of these two police officials and the statement of Investigating officer Inspector Jagtar Singh (PW-36 ). As per Head Constable Sajjan Pal and constable Joginder Singh, who happened to reach the spot by chance handed over the pistol to Inspector Jagtar Singh; (Station House Officer), immediately after it was recovered, who had reached the spot along with other police officials. To the contrary, testimony of Inspector Jagtar Singh indicates that on reaching the spot he came to know that injured and deceased had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. He immediately left the spot and went to the Hospital. In the hospital he got recorded the statement of Om Parkash; conductor of the said bus and got FIR registered. It was thereafter that he came back to the spot and then Constable Joginder Singh handed over the pistol to him. Therefore, under these circumstances, a shadow is cast on the prosecution case if the pistol Ex. P1 was recovered from Ranjeet Singh by constable Joginder Singh and handed over to Investigating Officer Inspector Jagtar Singh and, if so, when. Had it been immediately handed over to the Investigating Officer at the spot when he reached there, he would have found the appellants apprehended by the public and the police and the dead bodies of Kashmir Singh and Devender kumar at the spot. In case Inspector Jagtar Singh recovered the pistol after the registration of the FIR that is after 1. In case Inspector Jagtar Singh recovered the pistol after the registration of the FIR that is after 1. 00 a. m. then, in view of the contradictory statements of Constable Joginder and Head Constable Sajjan Pal, it is not believable that they had recovered the pistol from Ranjeet Singh. ( 22 ) NAMES of Head Constable Sajjan Pal and Constable Joginder Singh do not find mention in the Rukka prepared by the SHO on the complaint of Om prakash for registration of the case. Therefore, it is not known if at all these two persons were present at the spot and were instrumental in apprehending ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surender. ( 23 ) IT is an unfortunate case where double murder has taken place at about 10. 20 p. m. on the night of 28. 10. 1997 near Miglani Hotel Indira Vihar. Information was received at the Police Station vide DD No. 21a at about 10. 45 p. m. Rukka was sent by the Investigating Officer Inspector Jagtar Singh at about 1. 00 a. m. and thereafter the FIR was registered. Two lives have been lost. The prosecution has tried to develop a story that deceased Devender Kumar was an accomplice of Ranjeet Singh and Suraj @ Surender, but it has failed to produce any such evidence on the record. Witnesses have only indicated that devender Kumar was present at the bus stop near Indira Vihar when he fell victim to a bullet fired by one of the assailants while running away. Prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of any of the appellants, as the assailants. All the witnesses from the public, eye witnesses, witnesses to the apprehension of assailants and even the police officials who were instrumental in apprehending Ranjeet and Suraj are hostile. Their statements are highly contradictory to their own statement and to each other's statements. Their testimonies are unworthy of reliance. Even the recovery of pistol Ex. P1 which is shown to be the weapon of offence in view of the testimonies of witnesses examined by prosecution has become highly doubtful. This is a glaring example which highlights the callous manner in which investigation and trial of such a heinous offence like murder is conducted by the police officials. Even the recovery of pistol Ex. P1 which is shown to be the weapon of offence in view of the testimonies of witnesses examined by prosecution has become highly doubtful. This is a glaring example which highlights the callous manner in which investigation and trial of such a heinous offence like murder is conducted by the police officials. The legal protection is required to be given to the prosecution witnesses is to ensure that they can depose in the Court truthfully without any fear. It is not out of place to mention here that all the eye witnesses to the incident are DTC employees. One of their colleagues was shot dead in their presence, but they could not gather the courage to depose correctly and bring home the guilt of the appellants or the assailants, as the case may be. It seems that no witness protection was provided by the investigating agency. The testimony of Head constable Sajjan Pal (PW-7) and that of Constable Joginder Singh (PW-10) is highly condemnable. If the police officials are making statements in the Court as witnesses in such a ruthless manner and with no sense of responsibility and indifference, it is likely that guilty persons facing trial of heinous offences like murder are successful in getting acquittal in their favour. It is for the high officials of the police department to see that deprecable conduct of such like witnesses is taken into consideration and some disciplinary action is warranted to check insubordination and indifferent attitude of the police officials towards the prosecution and trial of a case. ( 24 ) UNDER these circumstance, we are left with no option but to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Appellant Ranjeet Singh is hereby acquitted of the offence charged with. (Accused Suraj @ Surender has already since expired ).