JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:- We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 466-DB of 2003, Criminal Appeal No.530-DB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No. 1667 of 2003 with a common order/judgment, as they have been filed against the same judgment/order dated 8.5.2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 2. The learned trial Court convicted Major Singh son of Prem Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha son of Jagtar Singh under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC. He sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, three years R.I. under Section 201 IPC and one year R.I. under Section 120-B IPC. He further directed them to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.200/- respectively under Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC and in default to undergo one year R.I. and six months R.I. respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.P4, of Soma Rani w/o Joginder Singh given to ASI Kewal Krishan in the area of Village Panjeke Uttar at 7.15 a.m. on 14.8.1999. 4. Soma Rani stated, that she is a resident of Village Jama Rakhayia Uttar. Earlier she was married to Mohinder Singh. Out of this wedlock, a son, namely Bohar Singh was born. After the death of her husband Mohinder Singh, she again got married to Joginder Singh. Out of this wedlock, a son and a daughter were born. Her elder son Bohar Singh, who was aged about 18 years, used to do the work of repair of electric motors and fans in a shop in the village. On 11.8.1999 Soma Rani, her son Bohar Singh and her father Piara Singh were present in the house. At about 8 p.m., Sukha Singh and his father Jagtar Singh came to their house and took Bohar Singh along with them by saying that, their electric motor was out of order, as its starter had got burnt and it needed immediate repair. Bohar Singh accompanied them. He did not return till 10 p.m. Soma Rani then went to the house of Sukha to know about her son. Sukha Singh told her, that he had left Bohar Singh in the street and he had gone to the house of Major Singh. Soma Rani enquired about her son from Jagtar Singh, the father of Sukha, who stated that Sukha had come from the house of Major Singh. Sukha Singh told her, that he had left Bohar Singh in the street and he had gone to the house of Major Singh. Soma Rani enquired about her son from Jagtar Singh, the father of Sukha, who stated that Sukha had come from the house of Major Singh. Sukha and Jagtar Singh did not give any satisfactory reply to Soma Rani. 5. Bohar Singh had Rs.2400/2500/- with him at the time, when he left the house. On the next day, Sukha came to the house of Soma Rani and asked about Bohar Singh, as he had to get his motor repaired. Soma Rani told Sukha, that Bohar Singh had gone with him since last night and requested him to tell her son’s whereabouts. Thereafter, Sukha left the house without giving any reply. She started looking for Bohar Singh. On 14.8.1999, she came to know about a dead body at the bridge of Bahadarke. Soma Rani along with her father Piara Singh, her brother Jagir Singh, Chand Singh son of Munsha Singh went on Lachhman canal to search for Bohar Singh. When they reached near Jhhuge Chhilian Basti Darbar Singh Wali, a dead body without clothes and without head was seen floating. The body and the head were taken out. She recognized the body and head to be that of her son Bohar Singh. The motive for the commission of the offence was that Bohar Singh had an altercation with Sukha Singh over money, which appellants took offence to. 6. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.P4/B was recorded on 14.8.1999 at 8.30 a.m. and the special report was sent to J.M.I.C., Ferozepur on the same day at 11.35 a.m. 7. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Hans Raj Patwari PW1, Jatinder Saini PW2, Soma Rani PW3, Munsha Singh PW4, Dr. Surinder Singh PW5, Nirmal Singh PW6, Piara Singh PW7, Tarlok Singh PW8 and ASI Kewal Krishan PW9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the sole eye witness Munsha Singh PW4, uncle of the deceased, is wholly unreliable. On 11.8.1999 he saw his nephew being murdered by the appellants, but strangely without telling anyone, he left for Patiala and came back on 15.8.1999 and thereafter, made a statement before the police. His behaviour is unnatural. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the sole eye witness Munsha Singh PW4, uncle of the deceased, is wholly unreliable. On 11.8.1999 he saw his nephew being murdered by the appellants, but strangely without telling anyone, he left for Patiala and came back on 15.8.1999 and thereafter, made a statement before the police. His behaviour is unnatural. If he had seen the occurrence, he would have told it to the respectables of the village and to the police. This witness has stated, that he did not go to the police because he was threatened, but has not explained as to why after four days he went to the police and gave a statement, though the threat had not been withdrawn. Soma Rani PW3, the mother of the deceased, was not informed. One of the sons of Munsha Singh PW4 was a Panch of the village. He did not inform him also. The distance of police station Guruharsahai was just 2½ K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. Nothing has been coming from the side of this witness, as to what compelled him to make a statement before the police. 9. In FIR Ex.P4/B, it has been stated by Soma Rani PW3, that she took Chand Singh son of Munsha Singh along with her to the police station. It is strange that though Chand Singh and Munsha Singh PW4 stayed in the same house, but Munsha Singh PW4 did not inform his son Chand Singh about the murder. 10. The extra judicial confession made to Piara Singh PW7 by appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha does not inspire confidence. No date or day of the extra judicial confession is given. Allegedly it was made after 4/5 days. The alleged extra judicial confession made by appellant Major Singh to Tarlok Singh PW8 also cannot be taken into consideration, as Tarlok Singh PW8 resiled from his statement and was declared hostile. 11. ASI Kewal Krishan PW9 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that appellants were produced before him by Piara Singh PW7 on 29.8.1999 i.e. after a gap of 18 days. Piara Singh PW7 in his testimony has stated, that he did not produce the appellants before Kewal Krishan ASI PW9. Both these witnesses have contradicted each other. 12. 11. ASI Kewal Krishan PW9 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that appellants were produced before him by Piara Singh PW7 on 29.8.1999 i.e. after a gap of 18 days. Piara Singh PW7 in his testimony has stated, that he did not produce the appellants before Kewal Krishan ASI PW9. Both these witnesses have contradicted each other. 12. Statement of Piara Singh PW7 was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His testimony in Court does not have any value, as it shows that he was not joined in investigation by the Investigation Officer, otherwise his statement would have been recorded. 13. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that Munsha Singh PW4 is an eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated, that he did not have good relations with Soma Rani PW3, as she had got remarried. It is after four days, that his conscious pricked his mind and he could not hold himself from telling the truth to the police about the murder of his nephew. He had also been threatened by the accused, that if he stated anything about the occurrence, then he would also meet the same fate. 14. The extra judicial confession made before Piara Singh PW7 Sarpanch, by appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha inspires confidence. It was made voluntarily. Piara Singh PW7 was the Sarpanch of the village. There is no need for him to falsely implicate the appellant. Though Tarlok Singh PW8 has resiled from his statement and was declared hostile, but there is still enough material in his statement to conclude, that appellant Major Singh made an extra judicial confession before him, regarding the murder of deceased Bohar Singh. The motive for the commission of the offence has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 16. Statement of the sole eye witness to the occurrence i.e. Munsha Singh PW4 does not inspire confidence. He is a planted witness, whose statement was recorded after four days of the occurrence. Munsha Singh PW4 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that on 11.8.1999 he had gone to his commission agent to get money. 16. Statement of the sole eye witness to the occurrence i.e. Munsha Singh PW4 does not inspire confidence. He is a planted witness, whose statement was recorded after four days of the occurrence. Munsha Singh PW4 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that on 11.8.1999 he had gone to his commission agent to get money. When he was coming back on the canal bank and reached near a Kutia of a Sadhu at about 9 p.m., he heard a noise from the side of the tube-well of appellant Sukhdev Singh. He went towards the tube-well through the fields. He saw that appellant Sukhdev Singh put the turban around the neck of deceased Bohar Singh and appellant Major Singh was saying, that Bohar Singh had teased his daughter, now he would teach him a lesson. Thereafter, appellant Sukhdev Singh strangulated him. Bohar Singh’s clothes were removed. Appellant Major Singh took out a Kahi and gave a blow on his neck, which separated the neck of Bohar Singh from his body. The body and the neck were thrown into the canal. Munsha Singh PW4 has further stated, that he protested with the appellants as to why they had committed this crime. Appellant Sukhdev Singh threatened him, that he would teach him a lesson. Munsha Singh PW4 thereafter ran away. He came back to his house. On the next day he left for Patiala to attend the marriage and came back after 3/4 days. It is on 15.8.1999 that he narrated the occurrence to the police. This witness also has stated, that he did not have good relations with Soma Rani PW3 and that is also the reason, that he did not tell the occurrence to her. No explanation is coming from this witness, as to what was the cause of these bad relations and what made him to change his mind, after four days to tell about the occurrence to the police and Soma Rani PW3. If this witness did have bad relations with Soma Rani PW3, he would not have exposed himself at the place of occurrence to the appellants, when he tried to stop them, but would have quietly walked away. 17. If this witness did have bad relations with Soma Rani PW3, he would not have exposed himself at the place of occurrence to the appellants, when he tried to stop them, but would have quietly walked away. 17. Soma Rani PW3 has stated in her testimony before the Court, that when she went to the police to tell about the murder of her son, she took along with her Chand Singh son of Munsha Singh (PW4). This in fact shows, that Munsha Singh PW4 and Soma Rani PW3 had good relations and that is the reason, that Chand Singh son of Munsha Singh, who was a member Panchayat, accompanied Soma Rani PW3. Munsha Singh PW4 is a planted witness and was introduced on 15.8.1999. 18. The extra judicial confession made by appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha to Piara Singh, Sarpanch PW7 and by appellant Major Singh before Tarlok Singh PW8 do not inspire confidence. For 18 days Piara Singh PW7 did not inform the police, nor did he take appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha to surrender before the police. ASI Kewal Krishan PW9 has stated, that appellant Sukhdev Singh was produced before him on 29.8.1999 by Piara Singh PW7, but Piara Singh PW7 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that he did not produce appellant Sukhdev Singh before the police. Tarlok Singh PW8 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 19. We are left with the testimony of only Soma Rani PW3. Her statement also does not inspire confidence, as she has stated in her testimony before the Court, that on 11.8.1999 at about 8 to 8.30 P.M., appellant Sukhdev Singh and Jagtar Singh took away her son Bohar Singh to repair the electric motor, as Bohar Singh was an electrician. Bohar Singh had about Rs.2400/2500/- with him. He did not return in the night. At 10.00 p.m. on the same night, she went to the house of appellant Sukhdev Singh to enquire about her son. Appellant Sukhdev Singh said, that he had left Bohar Singh in the street. For three days Soma Rani PW3 did not inform the Panchayat or the police about the missing of her son, though she knew that appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and the acquitted accused Jagtar Singh had taken him. She in fact for three days was groping in the dark about the whereabouts of her son. For three days Soma Rani PW3 did not inform the Panchayat or the police about the missing of her son, though she knew that appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and the acquitted accused Jagtar Singh had taken him. She in fact for three days was groping in the dark about the whereabouts of her son. With the above discussion and observations, we are of the considered opinion, that appellants have not committed the murder of Bohar Singh son of Soma Rani (PW3). Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 20. Criminal Appeal No. 466-DB of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 530-DB are allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellants Major Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha is set aside. If in custody, they be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Criminal Revision No.1667 of 2003 is dismissed. ————————————