Judgment H. S. Bhalla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25/11/1997 passed by Sessions Judge, faridkot, whereby he convicted the appellant under sections 302/392/460 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000; in default thereof, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sec.397 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.100; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: on 22/2/1996 Shri Jagdip Singh General Manager, Punjab Roadways, muktsar, gave a statement to Ashwani kumar, Inspector/sho Police Station muktsar, wherein he stated that on 22.2.1996 at about 12.30 mid night paramjit Singhconductor No.45, who was on night duty at the bus stand, informed him on the telephone that the noise was coming out of the Muktsar depot and Hans Raj Gunman was crying in an injured condition and sukhchain Singh conductor No.24, who was working as a Cashier was lying in the office. He gave information to the police on telephone and he personally reached the Depot. On receipt of the information, police came to the depot. Hans Raj was sent to Civil Hospital Muktsar. Dead body of sukhchain Singh was lying in the office of the General Manager. Locks of the cash were lying open. The safe was also open. Sukhchain Singh had been killed by some unknown person after firing at him and Hans Raj was lying injured. After the checking of the cash, information will be given about the same and as such action be taken against the assailants. After recording the above statement of the General Manager, Inspector Ashwani kumar got the case registered, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. During investigation, it was found that Rs.5,61,704 had been stolen from the cash room. After the checking of the cash, information will be given about the same and as such action be taken against the assailants. After recording the above statement of the General Manager, Inspector Ashwani kumar got the case registered, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. During investigation, it was found that Rs.5,61,704 had been stolen from the cash room. Blood stained earth, one empty cartridge of 12 Bore, a 12 bore gun stained with blood, two live cartridges, one missed cartridge and one empty cartridge, which was loaded, were recovered. A piece of Tatt, stained with blood, one blood stained earth were also picked up from different places and after making separate parcels were taken into possession. On 29.2.1996 Inspector Ashwani Kumar during investigation of this case interrogated accused Hans Raj in the presence of Gurmukh Singh and Bachittar singh conductors of Punjab Roadways, muktsar, and on interrogation, accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one bag; containing bundles of currency notes of Rs.100, Rs.50, Rs.20, Rs.10, Rs.5 and Rs.2 and Re.1 in a pit near the hand pump installed in his courtyard after digging the floor, and he knew about the same and he could get the: same recovered after identification. His disclosure statement was recorded and the same was attested by the prosecution witnesses. Then Hans Raj accused led the police party to the place of recovery and in accordance with his statement, he got recovered a white coloured bag containing the currency notes of the denominations mentioned above and the amount recovered was rs.4,42,730. The currency notes were put into a bag, which was duly sealed, with the seal bearing mark ak and. the same were taken into possession. On 2/3/1996 accused was interrogated by SI Udiq Chand in the presence of sukhdev and Bakhshish Singh, conductors of Punjab Roadways, Muktsar depot, and on interrogation, accused disclosed that he had kept concealed the currency notes after putting the same into a plastic envelope, which was put into a tin box and the currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.50 and 10 and some currency notes were in bundles and some in loose form and the base (box ?) was hidden in a corner of his kitchen and he could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and the same was signed by the accused and attested by the aforesaid pws. Then the accused led the police party and got recovered a tin containing currency notes, which was put into a polythene bag and the total amount recovered was Rs.1,14,800. The currency notes were converted into parcels and were taken into possession. Blood-stained earth and the empty cartridges were sent to the Chemical Examiner and after completion of the investigation the accused was sent up for trial. 3. Accused was charge-sheeted under sections 302/452/397 of the Indian Penal code and 27 of the Arms Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses, namely, joginder Singh, Conductor (PW1); Sardara singh (PW2); Manohar Lal, Head Constable (PW3); Bachittar Singh (PW4); Udiq Chand, sub-Inspector (PW5); Paramjit Singh, Conductor (PW6); amarjit Singh, Head Constable (PW7), Lachhman Singh (PW8); mohinderjit Singh, MHC (PW9); Jagdip singh Galwatti (PW10), Bakshish Singh (PW11); Gian Chand, Cashier (PW12); Surjit singh, Gun Man (PW13); Gur Iqbal Singh, conductor (PW14); Dr. Tarlochan Singh (PW15); Babu Lal, Senior Clerk (PW16); gurbachan Singh, Draftsman (PW17); Dr. Meena Jagga (PW18); Shavinder Singh, constable (PW19) and Ashwani Kumar, inspector (PW20 ). Reports of the Forensic science Laboratory and the Chemical Examiner have also been tendered into evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further explained that the murder of sukhchain Singh and the injuries inflicted upon him by fire arm were given by some unknown persons. He was sent to the Civil hospital, Muktsar in an injured condition. His statement was recorded by the Police as a witness; but later on, police took him from Civil Hospital, Muktsar and kept him in illegal custody for some days and thereafter, false currency notes were shown from him and in fact, he did not get any recovery effected. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. Ocular version in this case has been provided by Paramjit Singh, Conductor No.45, Punjab Roadways Depot, Muktsar (PW6), who has deposed that he was on duty on the intervening night of 21/22.2.1996. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. Ocular version in this case has been provided by Paramjit Singh, Conductor No.45, Punjab Roadways Depot, Muktsar (PW6), who has deposed that he was on duty on the intervening night of 21/22.2.1996. In fact, the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of this witness, who, as per the version, witnessed the occurrence. He has categorically deposed that on 21.2.1996 during the night time, he was on duty in the workshop at Muktsar and at about 8.30 or 8.45 p. m. he was present near the office of the General Manager. Sukhchain Singh and Hans Raj were present inside the General Managers office. Hans Raj was having a 12 bore gun, which had been issued to him by the Government being a Gunman. Cashier Sukhchain Singh went inside the office of the General manager for making a telephone call. Hans Raj accused followed him and fired a shot with the gun on the back of Sukhchain Singh and when he told (asked ?) the accused as to why he. had done so, he shouted that his turn had also come and then he ran away from there. He hid himself behind the bushes since the accused had asked him not to tell anyone. Thereafter the accused came out of the office and went to Cash Branch, where he stayed for some time and he put the cash in a bag and then he jumped the back wall and went away. He came back after about 2-2-1/2 hours at about 11.30 p. m. Then he came to the ground and fired on himself hittiing his left hand and left leg. Then the accused stated that he had been fired and the cash had been taken away. This witness has further disclosed that he went to the gate and gave a telephonic call to the General manager and he told the General Manager that the cashier was lying dead and fire had hit Hans Raj. He did not tell the true story since the accused had threatened him to kill. During the course of cross-examination this witness has further categorically admitted that police had come at about 12 or 12.30 midnight and they had seen the place of occurrence in his presence and others. He did not tell the true story since the accused had threatened him to kill. During the course of cross-examination this witness has further categorically admitted that police had come at about 12 or 12.30 midnight and they had seen the place of occurrence in his presence and others. He had not shown the place from where the fire was shot. On 3/3/1996 he had made a statement about the occurrence before the police. Till then he did not talk to anybody. He further deposed that he used to attend the office and used to meet the General manager also. All this clearly spells out that for the first time Paramjit Singh (PW6)disclosed about the occurrence on 3.3.1996, i. e. , after 10 days of the occurrence, whereas the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded prior to the recording of the statement of this witness, i. e. , on 29/2/1996 and 2/3/1996, whereas the occurrence is of dated 22/2/1996 andfir was also got recorded on the same day and it was Paramjit Singh (PW6), who had given a telephonic call to the general Manager of the Punjab Roadways, but his statement was not recorded on 22/2/1996 in spite of the fact that it is admitted by this witness that SSP, DSP and many other police officials had reached there at 12.00 or 12.30 mid night. This witness has categorically deposed that on 3/3/1996 he made a statement about the occurrence with the police. Till then he did not talk to any body. He used to attend to the office and met General Manager also. Failure and an unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution to record the statement of this star witness of the prosecution around whom the whole of the prosecution case revolves certainly creates a doubt in the version of the prosecution. It appears that this period was utilized by the prosecution for tutoring the witness and, therefore, delay of 10 days in examining this witness under Sec.161 if the Code of criminal Procedure is significant. No explanation is forthcoming as to why he was not examined for 10 days when the Investigating Officer and higher police officers reached the spot on the same night and met him at the spot. No explanation is forthcoming as to why he was not examined for 10 days when the Investigating Officer and higher police officers reached the spot on the same night and met him at the spot. Moreover, this witness informed the General Manager about the occurrence, but even then truthful version was not put forward by him and nor he talked to anybody about this incident for about 10 days. He has been attending the office. Meaning thereby that for about 10 days, he met number of persons in the office and as well as the General Manager. Therefore, the question that he was under mental shock and was not in a position to make a statement and his statement was recorded later on does not appear to reasoning at all. Delay in examining this witness during the course of investigation also creates a serious doubt in the absence of any explanation for the delayed examination after 10 days when admittedly, he was the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. 8. The disclosure statement, Ex. PB, of the accused was recorded firstly on 29/2/1996 and thereafter on 2/3/1996 Ex. PJ, i. e. , prior to the recording of the statement of this witness. This fact further causes dent in the case of the prosecution version. It appears that in order to fit in all these recoveries, the statement of this witness was recorded later on in order to implicate the present appellant. The conduct of this witness to remain silent even while the accused had gone to the house that is between 8.30 p. m. to 11.30 p. m. and thereafter till 3/3/1996 when accused was injured and in hospital is totally unexplainable and shakes the credibility of his statement. It does not appeal to reasoning that this witness after having seen such an occurrence would remain at the spot for more than three hours waiting for the accused to come back on his duty and if such a crime was committed by the accused-appellant then in normal circumstances, he would not return to the place of occurrence. The first statement, Ex. PW6 shows that according to him he saw the occurrence and informed the General Manager on telephone and the only information given to him was that Sukhchain Singh was lying dead on account of gun shot injuries. The first statement, Ex. PW6 shows that according to him he saw the occurrence and informed the General Manager on telephone and the only information given to him was that Sukhchain Singh was lying dead on account of gun shot injuries. As such, version given by him that he actually saw the accused firing at the deceased sukhchain Singh appears to be doubtful. 9. Prosecution has failed to explain the injuries (bullet injuries) on the person of the accused. Accused has incurred bullet injuries on his left hand and left leg. Injuries no.1, 2 and 4 were found to be grievous in nature. The entire prosecution is silent regarding these injuries. Even as per recoveries made on the spot, only one empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence. This factum is clear from the statement of ashwani Kumar (PW 20), the Investigating officer. In these circumstances, injuries on the person of the accused remain unexplained which shows major lapses on the part of the prosecution to bring forth the true version of the occurrence and render the prosecution version doubtful. Prosecution has tried to explain the injuries on the person of the accused as self-inflicted only on account of the statement of Paramjit singh (PW6), who is not a reliable witness, as already discussed above. Moreover, the question of injuries on the person of the accused being self-inflicted is highly improbable as Dr. Meena Jagga, Medical Officer, civil Hospital, Muktsar, who examined the accused admitted in her cross-examination as under : "there was no blackening or burning around the wound. There was no tattooing around the wound. " 10. As per Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. "when there is a close shot that is in range of powder blast and flame is within 1 to 3 inches for small arms there is a collar of soot and grease (if present on the bullet) around the circular would of entry. Partially burnt and un-burnt grains of powder are blasted into the skin causing a tattooing which cannot be easily wiped, off. " 11. In a case of self-inflicted injury, fire would take place from a very close range and. In the absence of blackening or burning around the wound and non-presence of tattooing around the wound clearly spell out that no self-inflicted injury took place as is being projected by the prosecution. " 11. In a case of self-inflicted injury, fire would take place from a very close range and. In the absence of blackening or burning around the wound and non-presence of tattooing around the wound clearly spell out that no self-inflicted injury took place as is being projected by the prosecution. If for the sake of arguments, it be presumed that it is self-inflicted injury then in that case it would be a shot from a close range and in that event un-burnt grains of powder are blasted into the skin would cause tattooing which cannot easily be washed off. Moreover, if fire arm is discharged from close to the body then in that event surrounding skin is usually blackened by smoke and tattooed with the un-burnt grains of gun powder and smokeless propellant powder. But in the instant case, no such thing was found by the Medical Officer, who examined the accused. Therefore, seen from every angle, case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. Moreover, we would also like to observe that fir was against unknown persons. Even the Investigating Officer, in his entire evidence, has not uttered even a single word as to how and when Hans Raj accused came under suspicion. The statement of that person alone is admissible, who is accused of an offence. When the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded, no case was registered against him nor there was any complaint accusing him in an offence, as already discussed above. Accusation of finger was raised on 3/3/1996 when the statement of Paramjit Singh (PW6) was recorded. Therefore, recording of the is disclosure st atement prior to the suspicion against the present appellant/accused loses its significance. We would like to observe that a person against whom a formal accusation of the commission of the offence has been made can be a person accused of an offence. Such formal accusation may be specifically made against him in a FIR or a formal complaint or any other formal document or notice served on that person, which ordinarily results in his prosecution in court. 12. Such formal accusation may be specifically made against him in a FIR or a formal complaint or any other formal document or notice served on that person, which ordinarily results in his prosecution in court. 12. Seeing the occurrence of murder, but not telling about it to anybody on the date of occurrence clearly spells out that the evidence of such a witness is not worthy of acceptance and no explanation has come forward as to why Paramjit Singh (PW 6) disclosed the entire incident after a lapse of 10 days to the police, nor he disclosed the same to his Punishing Authority, i. e. , the General manager in spite of the fact that he attended the office after the occurrence every day. This reasoning of ours is supported by the law contained in State of Orissa V/s. Brahmananda Nanda, AIR 1976 SC 2488. wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed as under: "where in a murder case, the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of a person claiming to be eyewitness and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the incident and the explanation offered for non-disclosure was unbelievable, held that such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness and that the high Court was correct in rejecting it as untrustworthy and acquitting the accused. " 13. In the instant case, non-disclosure of the occurrence by the alleged eye-witnesses to anyone for more two months and no explanation has been offered for the same and such non-disclosure certainly creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution version, which destroyed the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses and no reliance can be placed on such type of weak evidence. 14. It appears that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation and delay in a shady setting and is not free from doubts and suspicion. It also appears that after recording the disclosure statement, the prosecution thought of this witness, namely, Paramjit singh, Conductor (PW 6) to be cited as a witness. 15. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the entire picture of the occurrence, as presented by the prosecution and its witnesses is very much suspicion and doubtful. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 15. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the entire picture of the occurrence, as presented by the prosecution and its witnesses is very much suspicion and doubtful. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Appellant, if in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any case. 16. The result is unfortunate, but it cannot be helped. It is a pity that a brutal murder is going unpunished. Appeal allowed.