JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:-The appellants were convicted for having committed the murder of Surjit Singh son of Man Singh on 11.08.1997, near the liquor vend located in the area of Village Manuali. 2. PW6-Kuldip Singh has two brothers. He is the eldest, followed by Surjit Singh and Avtar Singh. Kuldip Singh resides at Village Bhago Majra; while Surjit Singh was joint in mess in residence with their father Man Singh for the last 15/16 years. Avtar Singh is in employment in a factory at Mohali. 3. On 11.08.1997, Kuldip Singh was proceeding from Village Bhago Majra to Village Manuali to see his father. When he reached near the liquor vend located in the area of Village Manauli, at about 9.00 PM,he heard the exchange of abuses. On going near the liquor vend, he found that the exchange of abuses was taking place between his brother Surjit Singh on the one hand and Karnail Singh and Gurbax Singh appellants on the other hand. They were also quarrelling with each other. He intervened and separated the parties. Even thereafter, Dr. Gurbax Singh (who was running a Clinic in the area of Village Manauli) abused Surjit Singh and also announced that he (Dr. Gurbax Singh) would not spare Surjit Singh as the latter had abused the former. On hearing that exhortation, appellant Karnail Singh caught hold of Surjit Singh by his long hair, pulled him backward and felled him upon the ground. Thereafter, all of a sudden, appellant Gurbax Singh took out a knife from a pocket of his trousers, sat on the chest of Surjit Singh and gave him a number of blows with the knife. On seeing Kuldip Singh move ahead( to come to the aid of Surjit Singh), appellant Karnail Singh ran towards him and threatened to deal with him in the similar manner as had been done in the case of Surjit Singh. Kuldip Singh fled the spot towards the maize field in order to save himself. Appellant Karnail singh ran after him for quite some distance but not thereafter. Kuldip Singh concealed himself in the maize crop and did not come out of the place of hiding throughout night, out of fear. The following morning, at about 7 A.M., he went to the house of his father at Village Manauli and enquired from him about whether Surjit Singh had returned home the preceding night or not. Kuldip Singh concealed himself in the maize crop and did not come out of the place of hiding throughout night, out of fear. The following morning, at about 7 A.M., he went to the house of his father at Village Manauli and enquired from him about whether Surjit Singh had returned home the preceding night or not. On getting response in negative, he brought the entire gammut of facts to the notice of his father. Thereafter, Kuldip Singh went over to the liquor vend side in the company of his father and brother-in-law (sister’s husband). On reaching there, he found a parna (a small piece of cloth) belonging to Surjit Singh lying upon the ground at a place towards the left hand side of the liquor vend. They also spotted some blood over there. There also was a trail of blood from the spot (where Surjit Singh had been felled upon the ground) towards the maize field. The dead body of Surjit Singh was found in the maize field at a small distance. Leaving his father at the spot to guard the dead body, Kuldip Singh proceeded towards Police Station Sohana in the company of his brother-in-law. Enroute, he came across a Police party headed by S.H.O. Sohan Lal near the Chowk of Village Chao Majra. Kuldip Singh brought the circumstances leading to the belabouring of his brother Surjit Singh to the notice of the S.H.O. The legal machinery was thereby set into motion on the basis of statement Ex.PF of PW6–Kuldip Singh which had been recorded by S.H.O. Sohan Lal. 4. The appellants were challened, on completion of investigation, in due course. 5. The prosecution examined PW1–Dr. Rita Bhardwaj, PW2–Rajinder Singh, PW3–Gian Chand, PW4–Saroop Singh, PW5–Constable Bhupinder Singh, PW6–Kuldip Singh, PW7–Gurmukh Singh, PW8–Janak Kumar and PW9–S.I. Sohan Lal in support of its case. 6. PW1–Dr. Rita Bhardwaj had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Surjit Singh and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- “1. Incised wound 18 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep placed horizently at the level of thyroid cartilage starting from medial aspect of right sterno cleibomastiod muscle to medial aspect of left sterno cleibomastiod. Trachea and Oesophagus below are cut through and through. Right carotid artery was cut. Whole of the wound was filled with blood. 2. 2 cm long horizontal abrasion just right to sterno notch. 3. Trachea and Oesophagus below are cut through and through. Right carotid artery was cut. Whole of the wound was filled with blood. 2. 2 cm long horizontal abrasion just right to sterno notch. 3. 2 cm long horizontal abrasion just above the right nipple. 4. 1 cm long horizontal abrasion font of left side of chest upper end. 5. 1 cm long abrasion just below and parallel to injury No.4. 6. Scab 1 cm x 0.5 cm just behind right meial malliolus.” She further opined that the injuries aforementioned was ante mortem in character and that the cause of death was Injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On examination of the knife presented before her by the police, she further opined that the injuries found on the dead body could have been caused by it. 7. PW2–Rajinder Singh, Patwari had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD of the spot on 15.09.1997, on the pointing of Kuldip Singh. PW3–Gian Chand, Draftsman, had also prepared scaled site plan Ex.PE on 16.10.1997, on the pointing of Kuldip Singh. PW4 MHC(Moharrir Head Constable) Sarup Singh and PW5 Constable Bhupinder Singh tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PW-4 and Ex.PW5 respectively. PW6–Kuldip Singh is a son of the deceased PW7 Gurmukh Singh had witnessed the impugned occurrence. PW8–Janak Kumar had photographed (vide photographs Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 & Ex.P11 to P14 being their negatives) the place of impugned occurrence. PW-9 S.I. Sohan Lal is the Investigating Officer of the case. 8. The following plea was taken up by the appellants (Gurbax Singh and Karnail Singh) in the course of the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:- Plea taken by Gurbux Singh appellant: “I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. I had strained relations with Sohan Lal S.I. A un-married girl had delivered the child and the police was demanding the money from me and was saying that if I had no money then I should dispose of my house. Mulkhraj a official of police of Police Station Sohana had also come to me. I had no paid any money to the police and due to that very reason I have been falsely implicated in this case.” Plea taken by Karnail Singh appellant: “I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. I had enmity in the village. Mulkhraj a official of police of Police Station Sohana had also come to me. I had no paid any money to the police and due to that very reason I have been falsely implicated in this case.” Plea taken by Karnail Singh appellant: “I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. I had enmity in the village. Kaka Singh of my village was murdered and we were helping the complainant party in that case, whereas Surmukh Singh and Kuldeep Singh were helping the Surjit Singh accused in that case. So, due to enmity I have been falsely implicated in this case.” 9. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Trial Judge upheld the prosecution plea, discarded appellants’ plea of innocence and proceeded to record the impugned finding of conviction. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Gurbax Singh as Amicus Curiae argued, at the very outset, that the entire prosecution presentation deserves to be invalidated in view of the fact that the presence of both the eye witnesses i.e. PW6–Kuldip Singh and PW7–Gurmukh Singh at the spot and at the relevant point of time is doubtful. In support of that averment, it was pointed out that Kuldip Singh had not even named Gurmukh Singh as a person who had witnessed the impugned occurrence and the own presence of the former at that point of night and for the purpose averred by him is not proved beyond doubt. 11. We find force in the plea. In support of this finding of fact, we have the following observations to make:- 12. The prosecution case draws sustenance from the testimony of only PW6–Kuldip Singh and PW7–Gurmukh Singh, both of whom individually claimed to have witnessed the impugned occurrence. We have to examine the material obtaining on the file in the first instance to find out whether the presence of Kuldip Singh at the spot is proved beyond doubt or not. On his own showing, he is a resident of Village Bhago Majra; while his deceased brother was residing with their father Man Singh in the area of Village Manuali. Distance between the aforementioned two villages is about 17-18 kms. (“Bhago Majra is about 17 to 18 km from Village Manauli” - PW Kuldip Singh). As per his statement, he initially travelled from Bhago Majra to Kharar on a scooter. Distance between the aforementioned two villages is about 17-18 kms. (“Bhago Majra is about 17 to 18 km from Village Manauli” - PW Kuldip Singh). As per his statement, he initially travelled from Bhago Majra to Kharar on a scooter. From Kharar, he walked upto the mill. Thereafter, he boarded a truck and travelled a distance of about 11 kms to Village Saneta. After being dropped by the truck at that village, he walked a distance about 4 kms to reach Manauli. Before reaching the house of his father, he had allegedly witnessed the impugned occurrence at about 9 p.m near a liquor vend located in the area of that village. In the examination-inchief, all that he stated was that he had gone over to Manauli only to see his father. It is only in the course of the cross-examination that he came forward with the explanation that “I had gone to Manauli to meet my father and borrow money for purchasing 2 to 4 bags of fertilizer. The bags would have cost 600 to 700/-.” 13. Throughout the statement of PW6- Kuldip Singh, he does not at all name PW7–Gurmukh Singh as also having witnessed the impugned occurrence. He wants the Court to believe that he adopted various means of conveyance to visit his father just for the purchase of 2 to 4 bags of fertilizers which (bags) would have cost Rs. 600/- to Rs.700/-. On his own showing, he left Village Bhago Majra at 6 p.m. and reached near the spot at about 9 p.m. There is no evidence on the file that he owns any agricultural holding or that he is a lessee of any land. What for he was required to raise funds to the tune of Rs.600/- - Rs.700/- is beyond comprehension, it having been left unanswered at the trial. It would appear doubtful and illogical that a person would travel 17-18 km of distance through different means of transport (and that too by courtesy) just in order to be able to raise fund to the tune of Rs.600/- - Rs.700/- which he required to purchase 2-4 bags of fertilizers. To cap it all, he conceded in the course of cross-examination that he did not indicate to the police the purpose for which he had come to Manauli to see his father. 14. To cap it all, he conceded in the course of cross-examination that he did not indicate to the police the purpose for which he had come to Manauli to see his father. 14. Insofar as Gurmukh Singh is concerned, he claimed that he was familiar with PW6- Kuldip Singh and Surjit Singh deceased (“I knew Kuldip Singh and Surjit Singh because we were running into one another in the locality of village Manauli”) but that he was not on visiting terms with them. At this stage, it would be pertinent to point out that PW6 Kuldip Singh had an altogether different plea to indicate. While he claimed to have known the name of Gurmukh Singh prior to the impugned occurrence, he averred that he did not meet Gurmukh Singh on the day of the impugned occurrence either and that he did not see him at the time of the occurrence ( “I only knew the name of Gurmukh Singh and his village prior to the occurrence. I had never met Gurmukh Singh prior to the occurrence. He did not meet me on the day of the occurrence either. I did not see him at the time of the occurrence at the place where the incident had taken place”). 15. While appreciating the above submission, it would be useful to notice that Gurmukh Singh is a resident of village Dhurali which is at a distance of about 1-1/2 kms towards the north of liquor vend. He does not belong to village Manauli, There was, thus, no question of his having got any opportunity to run into PW6 Kuldip Singh and Surjit Singh in the area of village Manauli, particularly when Kuldip Singh is not ordinarily residing in a village which is at a distance of about 17/18 Kms and further he is residing over there only for the last about 15/16 years. 16. It is apparent to us from the record that PW 6 Kuldip Singh PW 7 Gurmukh Singh were trying to buy time by averring that both of them hid themselves in the fields. The former averred that he came out of hiding only the next morning; while the latter claimed at the trial to have been in hiding for about two hours but was not able to indicate whether he had given the duration of hiding to the police as two hours, three hours or four hours. The former averred that he came out of hiding only the next morning; while the latter claimed at the trial to have been in hiding for about two hours but was not able to indicate whether he had given the duration of hiding to the police as two hours, three hours or four hours. The post occurrence conduct of Gurmukh Singh also leaves much to be desired when it comes to appreciating his testimony for determining whether he had been able to prove his availability at the spot at the time of occurrence or not. He avers to have saved himself by hiding in the chari field for a period of about two hours before returning to his village by a circuitous route. On his own showing, he started from the liquor vend at about 8.15 p.m. after sunset. He had not seen Kuldip Singh on the road leading to the liquor vend from Village Saneta. It was dark at the time when he went over to the liquor vend. Though he claimed to have witnessed the impugned occurrence, he did not convey facts either to Man Singh or Avtar Singh and also did not talk about it to the employee at the liquor vend. 17. It is in his testimony that “no talk took place between Man Singh, Kuldip Singh or Kuldip Singh’s brother-in-law regarding my being cited as a witness.” If Gurmukh Singh had actually witnessed the impugned occurrence, where after all was the occasion for his being cited as a witness coming up for consideration. A truthful witness would obviously be cited by the prosecution to buttress is plea. The question of discussion would come up only if a witness is provenly inimical towards party requiring his testimony. There is no such averment in the matter before this court. 18. As per the material obtaining on the file, there was a liquor employee available at the liquor vend at the relevant point of time. In that view of things, he was the most natural witness of the impugned occurrence. However, he was not examined at the trial. As per the statement of PW6–Kuldip Singh, the house of one Baldev Singh adjoins the liquor vend. It is there only that Baldev Singh aforementioned resides with other members of his family. In that view of things, he was the most natural witness of the impugned occurrence. However, he was not examined at the trial. As per the statement of PW6–Kuldip Singh, the house of one Baldev Singh adjoins the liquor vend. It is there only that Baldev Singh aforementioned resides with other members of his family. Interestingly enough, neither the liquor vend employee nor Baldev Singh aforementioned were either cited or examined at the trial. 19. There is yet another unnatural aspect which requires to be considered in the context of the presence of PW6–Kuldip Singh at the spot. On his own showing, he did not fall upon his brother Surjit Singh in order to save him. He also did not talk over facts to any Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar about whatever had happened during the night. Though he averred that his brother-in-law had accompanied him to the spot where the dead body of Surjit Singh was found lying and also to the police, he had no idea about whether brother-in-law, a resident of Manauli, had reached that very morning or he had already reached the previous night or few days prior thereto. He also had no idea about the mode of conveyance which had been used by his brother-in-law for reaching Manauli. 20. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that the ocular segment of the prosecution presentation consists of the testimony of PW6 Kuldip Singh and PW 7 Gurmukh Singh. As noticed in an earlier part of the judgment, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that PW 6 Kuldip Singh had any valid and acceptable occasion to be around at the spot at that point of time. Likewise, it has also been indicated in an earlier part of the judgment that the presence of Gurmukh Singh at the spot at the relevant point of time is not established beyond doubt. In the light thereof, the prosecution is left high and dry for want of any other substantive evidence to prove the charge against the appellants. The mere fact that the appellants got the relevant recoveries effected in pursuance of their individual disclosure statements cannot be said to be, by itself, sufficient to hold the charge against the appellants proved. 21. Further, it also requires pointed notice that PW6–Kuldip Singh even did not show the place of hiding to the police. The mere fact that the appellants got the relevant recoveries effected in pursuance of their individual disclosure statements cannot be said to be, by itself, sufficient to hold the charge against the appellants proved. 21. Further, it also requires pointed notice that PW6–Kuldip Singh even did not show the place of hiding to the police. (“I did not show to the police officials the place where I had run away to save myself and where I had hidden myself”). If the statement made by him had even an iota of truth in it, he ought to have shown his place of hiding to the police inasmuch as the alleged place of hiding would have borne testimony to the place of hiding. If an individual hides in a field with standing crops (as in this case), one would surely find the relevant area crushed. In any case, the crops at the relevant area would bear testimony to the place of hiding. The proof of that fact would have surely give a long way in buttressing the prosecution averment of PW-6 Kuldip Singh having witnessed the commission of the impugned crime. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow these appeals. The finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge stands set aside. The appellants in both the appeals shall stand acquitted of the charge. ------------------