Judgment S.L.Kochar, J. ( 1. ) The appellants have filed this appeal challenging their conviction under Section 302/34, 201 and 394 of the I.P.C and sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for six months, R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I for three months and R.I for ten years with fine of Rs.400/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for five months respectively, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 105/1998, dated 20-10-1998. ( 2. ) According to the prosecution case, deceased Mohanlal and his second wife Sitabai were residing in a hutment situated outside the village in the field. They were not in their house which was locked from outside. On 25-12-1997 Omkar son of Laljiram Patidar [P.W-6], found a bedding in his well and after extracting it from the well it was seen that same was containing Rajai (quilt), Shawl, Shirt, Paijama, Hankerchief, ladies wrist watch and a child cap tied with stones. He lodged the report on the same day and along with him Harisingh Head Constable [P.W-18], proceeded towards his well. They made a search of the well of Omkar, by throwing anchor and found a gunny bag in which dead body of Mohanlal was wrapped along with bricks and stones. On the basis of this, in Chimanganj, Police Station F.I.R. Exhibit P/43, was recorded by Head Constable Ramvilas Singh. Through seizure memo Exhibit P/1, all the articles were seized. The lock of the house of Mohanlal was broken open wherein blood stained, roof, tile and earth soiled with blood and other articles were found which were seized through seizure memos Exhibit P/14. Spot Map Exhibit P/16 and P/17, were also prepared at the instance of the witnesses. Seized articles were got identified in test identification parade vide memos Exhibit P/10, P/11, P/12. The Police and villagers continued the search of wife of Mohanlal and ultimately she was also found wrapped in a gunny bag lying in well of Ayyub [P.W.-8]. It was seized through Exhibit P/21. ( 3. ) The accused persons were arrested and on their memorandum statements from Exhibit P/26 to Exhibit P/30 and seizure memo Exhibit P/31, P/32;and P/33 from their possession trouser, Shirt, Silver chain, Paijeb, Golden Pendal, Silver ball were seized. It was seized through Exhibit P/21. ( 3. ) The accused persons were arrested and on their memorandum statements from Exhibit P/26 to Exhibit P/30 and seizure memo Exhibit P/31, P/32;and P/33 from their possession trouser, Shirt, Silver chain, Paijeb, Golden Pendal, Silver ball were seized. [P.W-12] Suraj Singh Patwari, prepared another map Exhibit-P/36. For death of Mohanlal. Dehati Nalish Exhibit-P/42 was recorded. Dead bodies were sent for Postmortem examination which was conducted by [P.W-13] Dr. G.S Dhawan. Dr. Dhawan, performed autopsy on the dead body of Mohanlal. Doctor who performed Postmortem on the dead body of sitabai was not examined - before the trial Court. On completion of investigation appellants were charge Sheeted for commission of above mentioned offences. ( 4. ) Appellants denied the charges and pleaded innocence. .They did not examine any witness in defence. The prosecution examined in all nineteen witnesses and got Exhibited 46 documents to prove its case. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the judgment of conviction of the appellants as mentioned herein above. ( 5. ) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. ( 6. ) The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there was no eye witness of the incident and prosecution case in the charge sheet was based on circumstantial evidence, but in Court, prosecution failed to adduce any cogent, reliable and admissible evidence against the appellants who are entitled for acquittal. To combat with learned counsel for the state has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial court. ( 7. ) On going through the impugned judgment and evidence on record we gather that there is absolutely no evidence against the appellants worth for conviction. The learned trial Court placed reliance on the testimony of [P.W-10] Bhagwan Singh and [P.W-16] Ram-Narayan, regarding memorandum statements of appellants vide Exhibit P/26 to P/30. BhagwanSingh and Ram NarayanSingh both turned hostile, but they have admitted their signatures on the memorandum-statements. At the same time they have denied recording of any statement of appellants as shown in documents" Exhibit-P/26, P/27,P/29 and P/30 for discovering any fact related to crime. They have also denied seizure of any article in pursuance of the memorandum statements vide seizure memo Exhibit P/31, P/32 and P/33. At the same time they have denied recording of any statement of appellants as shown in documents" Exhibit-P/26, P/27,P/29 and P/30 for discovering any fact related to crime. They have also denied seizure of any article in pursuance of the memorandum statements vide seizure memo Exhibit P/31, P/32 and P/33. Both the witnesses were cross examined by the prosecutor, but they have denied the contents of memorandum statement and seizure memo. No cross examination was done by the prosecutor as to how and on what basis both the witnesses put their signatures on all these documents. The learned Trial Court relied upon the contents of these documents which have not been accepted by both the witnesses who have been declared hostile and nothing substantial was elicited in cross examination by the prosecutor. The learned trial Court in paragraph 20 has mentioned that merely because the witnesses turned hostile, prosecution case would not be weakened. The trial Court relied upon the contents of memorandum statement as well as seizure memo which is contrary to the provision of law. The contents of Punchnama itself are not admissible in evidence unless stated by the concerned witnesses in the Court. These documents can be used for refreshing the memory as per provision 159 of Evidence Act and to corroborate the version of its author as per provision under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, see: 1958, M.P.L.J. Bhagirath Vs. State of Madhya pradesh) page 745. ( 8. ) The appellants have not disputed homicidal death of Mohanlal. The homicidal death of Sitabai has also not been proved by examining the Autopsy Surgeon by prosecution but even then the trial Court has held it as proved. ( 9. ) The learned trial Court has also placed reliance on the Forensic Science Laboratory report Exhibit P/46 which is disclosing the presence of simple blood on the trouser and shirt of the appellants and held that the burden is on the appellants to show as to how blood was present on their clothes. ( 10. ) The trial Court has held that the appellants have failed to establish as to how blood was found on their clothes and there was no proof that it was not the human blood, therefore, this circumstance is against the appellants who have failed to give explanation and failed to establish that clothes were not containing human blood. ( 10. ) The trial Court has held that the appellants have failed to establish as to how blood was found on their clothes and there was no proof that it was not the human blood, therefore, this circumstance is against the appellants who have failed to give explanation and failed to establish that clothes were not containing human blood. In paragraph 22 as well as in paragraph 28 the learned trial court has committed grave error of law by holding that appellants were required to establish that the blood found on their clothes was not the human blood. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that burden of proving charge against the accused persons lies on the prosecution and prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that prosecution has to stand on its own leg and cannot take benefit of weakness of defence as well as whenever two sets of evidence or two inferences are possible, one in favour of accused and another against the accused, the evidence or inferences in favour of the accused should be relied upon. The trial Court has given finding contrary to the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence and convicted the appellants, though there is no legal evidence available on record to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 11. ) In the result instant appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby set aside. They are on bail. Their bail and surety bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed. RAHUL