JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 798-DB of 1997 filed by Ashish Vinayak and Crl. Revision No. 275 of 1998 filed by Ashutosh Arora. 2. The case relates to the death of Miss Anupam Arora daughter of Mohan Lal Arora resident of SCF No.2, Sector-11, Chandigarh at the hands of the appellant on 9.5.1996 at about 1.00 PM, which led to the prosecution of the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to be as “the accused”). Ultimately, he was convicted vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. He was also sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of which to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 3. The case was registered against the accused vide statement Ex, PJ dated 9.5.1996 at about 3.30 PM near Yavnika Park, Sector-5, Panchkula made by Ashutosh Arora (PW-8) brother of the deceased wherein he disclosed that one day prior to the occurrence, Anupam Arora (deceased) aged 21 years old used to undertake training in Uptron Computer Centre Sector-8, Chandigarh. The accused was also undergoing training there, consequently both accused and Anupam Arora developed intimacy on account of which, the accused started paying visits to their house, Thereafter, she joined cooking course in Sector-34, Chandigarh. On 9.5.1996, she had left her house at about 11/11.15 AM for the place of avocation in Sector-34, Chandigarh, On the same day at about 1.00 PM a unanimous call was received by him vide which he was intimated that the accused had forcibly taken her sister Anupam Arora in Maruti Car bearing No. CHK-7819 towards Panchkula. At this, he alongwith Sh. Bhagwan Dass son of Hem Raj Khatri resident of H.No. 506, Punjab Engineering College, Sector-12, Chandigarh reached Panchkula in search of the deceased and on search the dead body of Anupam Arora was found lying at deserted place near Japani Park at Sector-5, Panchkula. There was a gun shot injury on the right side of her head. The left side of the head was torn apart and brain matter was protruding out. Then on suspicion, he named the appellant as an accused. There was a gun shot injury on the right side of her head. The left side of the head was torn apart and brain matter was protruding out. Then on suspicion, he named the appellant as an accused. He further disclosed that reason to murder Anupam Arora is that accused had proposed many a time to marry his sister but his sister and other members of our family did not approve the proposal. Prior to the occurrence, the father of the appellant had visited their place and set up a proposal but the same was declined by them. Therefore, the accused in furtherance of this frustration committed her murder. On the basis of aforesaid statement, which was completed about 3.45 PM, FIR was registered against the accused. The special report was received by learned IIlaqa Magistrate at 6.40 AM on 10.5.1996. ASI Mohinder Lal (PW-14) handled the investigation. He visited the site, recovered an empty cartridge Ex. P-11; lifted the same and took into possession vide memo Ex. PL. He also took into possession blood stained earth and bunch of hair vide memo Ex. PK; prepared the Inquest Report Ex.PH/1, and moved an application Ex. PH for autopsy of the body of the deceased. He also recorded the statement of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) who had seen the accused in the said car at 12.00 Noon on 9.5.1996 when his car had crossed the old barrier of Panchkula. He had come to know about the murder of Anupam Arora at about 8 PM. It shows that the statement of Madan Mohan Arora was recorded after 8 PM. 4. In the meantime, accused was produced by his father G.R. Vinayak in Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh before Inspector, K.P. Singh and an entry was made in this regard in the Daily Diary Report of the Police Station and sent information to S.H.O. Sector-5, Panchkula. In turn Shri Karan Singh, ASI (PW-13) from the Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula reached Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh and took the custody of the accused vide entry Ex. PC/1 recorded at 4.40 PM on that day. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PV, pursuant to which he got recovered the rifle from the bed room of his house. Dr. Prem Lata (PW-7) conducted the autopsy on the body of Anupam Arora and submitted her report Ex.PH. The Investigating Officer also recovered a car bearing no. PC/1 recorded at 4.40 PM on that day. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PV, pursuant to which he got recovered the rifle from the bed room of his house. Dr. Prem Lata (PW-7) conducted the autopsy on the body of Anupam Arora and submitted her report Ex.PH. The Investigating Officer also recovered a car bearing no. CHK-7819 from the house of the parents of the accused i.e. H.No. 1597, Sector-34D, Chandigarh. The empty cartridge recovered from the spot Ex.P11 and live cartridge Ex.P15 taken from the rifle, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. On receipt of report of the Ballistic Expert-PW-D, the challan was presented in the court. 5. On commitment, the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PW-1­ Sh.Ram Saran Constable No. 410, PW-3-Sukhjinder Singh, HC, PW-10-Jambu Singh, Constable, PW-11, Shri Jai Pal Singh, HC, proved the formal FIR, PW-2, K.P. Singh, Inspector, proved the report No. 26 recorded at 4.10 PM and Report No. 29 recorded at 4.40 PM on the same day. PW-4-Des Raj, Sub-Inspector is a formal witness. PW-5-Madan Mohan Arora is a witness to the last seen and according to him at about 11/11.15 AM on 9.5.1996, he had noticed that the accused while driving a car was coming from the opposite side and Anupam Arora was sitting by his side. He further deposed about the affairs between the two. PW-6-Bhim Sain, Photographer proved the photographs Ex. P1 to Ex.P5 and negatives Ex. P6 to Ex. P-10 taken on 9.5.1996 at the place of occurrence in Panchkula. PW-7-Dr. Prem Lata, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased observed, as under:- i) “The dead body was of young woman wearing light green printed shirt, white salwar, white under shirt, cream coloured bra and black coloured underwear. Eyes were shuken and face was disfigured due to the underlying fracture of facial bones and skull wounds. Entry wound A circular wound with inverted margins 1.5 cms. in diameter was present just in front of the right tragus. There was scorching and tattcoing marks 5.5. cm, in diameter all around the entry wound. On passing probe, it passed through craia cavity upto the exist wound. Entry wound A circular wound with inverted margins 1.5 cms. in diameter was present just in front of the right tragus. There was scorching and tattcoing marks 5.5. cm, in diameter all around the entry wound. On passing probe, it passed through craia cavity upto the exist wound. The direction of the wound could not be assessed because of the communicated fracture of skull bones and coming out whole of brain matter due to the exit wound. Exit wound Left side of the skull just above the pinna was blown of and whole of brain matter was lacerrated and came out mixed with blood and small pieces of skull wound. Skull wound was fractured into multiple pieces. Mandible was also fractured. Uterus of the deceased Anupam Arora was sent for expert opinion. A report has been received from Rohtak Medical College and the report is PG” 7. In her opinion the death of the deceased was caused in this case due to haemorrhage and shock due to gun shot injury. All the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. She proved the copy of postmortem report Ex. PH and Inquest report Ex.PD/1. She also opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 on the person of the deceased could be caused by fire arm. 8. She further ruled out the possibility of said injury to be suicidal nature. While giving the duration of the injuries to be within 24 hours stated the injuries could take place at any time at 10.00 or 11.00 on 9.5.1996. 9. PW-8 Ashutosh Arora, is the real brother of the deceased and First Information Report lodger. PW-9-Shri Narender Singh is a witness to the recovery of the car bearing No. CHK-7819 and driving licence Ex.P-16 from the accused. He also stated that licence of the gun Ex.PO/1 was produced by the father of the accused and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PO. 10. PW-13-Karan Singh, ASI had arrested the accused from Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh and stated that he was present in a showroom of Sector-11, Panchkula when he received the information. Thereafter, at about 3/3.15 PM on 9.5.1996, he started from Panchkula by bus and reached the bus stand of Chandigarh and then he took a three-wheeler and went to Sector-34, Chandigarh for taking the custody of the accused. Thereafter, at about 3/3.15 PM on 9.5.1996, he started from Panchkula by bus and reached the bus stand of Chandigarh and then he took a three-wheeler and went to Sector-34, Chandigarh for taking the custody of the accused. PW-14-Mohinder Lal, SI, Investigating Officer of the case has deposed about sequence of events which happened during investigation. 11. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that Anupam Arora was his class fellow in Computer Centre, Sector-8, Chandigarh and he denied if he used to visit the house of Anupam Arora. However, he denied if he had visited the house of the deceased once or twice. He further denied the allegations and while urging his innocence, he explained as under: “I am innocent. I never asked the deceased to have a marriage with me. Rather her parents asked me to marry her to which I refused. I was taken by the police on the night on 9.5.1996 from my parents place in Sector-34, Chandigarh. The police had taken away the rifle of my father from his possession and I was implicated in this case falsely. I had no motive to murder the deceased. I have been involved on the basis of suspicion and totally a false case has been made. I neither made any disclosure statement nor any recovery was effected at my instance. I will produce the defence evidence. 12. He examined Surinder Kumar in defence as DW-1, who established that width of the divider on the main road is about 5 feet and there is fencing of 4½ feet which was developed since 1994 where he is alleged to have been seen by Madan Mohan Arora PW-5. DW-2-Gurcharan Singh son of Lachhman Singh, Photographer proved the photographs Ex.D.1 and D.2. The negatives of these photographs Ex.D3 and D.4 relating to the place of exit and entrance of Panchkula Barrier. DW-3-G.R.Vinayak, retired Colonel is father of the accused, he denied having produced his son before the Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh on the relevant date. However, he pleaded that the police came to his house on 9.5.1996 at 9.00 PM and took his son and also his rifle with them. The rifle was not recovered in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However, he pleaded that the police came to his house on 9.5.1996 at 9.00 PM and took his son and also his rifle with them. The rifle was not recovered in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. He admitted that the father of the deceased rang him in September 1995 for offering the hand of his daughter Anupam Arora but he had refused for the reason that his son had not so far settled in life. 13. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 14. Amongst the other contentions, Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has tried to demolish the prosecution case by pointing out the various holes left during investigation by the investigating agency and other circumstances creating a dent in the prosecution case. He has submitted that the case is completely based on circumstantial evidence and in order to reach the conclusion in such cases, the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances, rendering hypothesis that it was the accused only and none else who committed the crime. In this case no motive stands established. Besides leading no evidence in order to establish that she had joined cooking classes, the prosecution has not brought forward any evidence to establish that the deceased left her house on 9.5.1996 at 11/11.15 AM for attending the Cookery Class in Sector-34, Chandigarh and if the accused had gone to said center on the date of occurrence for the purpose then as to why her vehicle was found from the parking of Panjab University Chandigarh. The testimony of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) allegedly a witness to the last seen being shaky hardly attaches any reliability, credibility and trustworthiness. The crime cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence, on comparison, could not be found to be that fired from .30 rifle allegedly recovered by ASI Mohinder Lal (PW-14) from the accused, owned by his father. 15. On the contrary Mr.S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has stated that there is evidence of last seen witness of the deceased. He has stated that since the love affair could not reach the climax of marriage between the accused and the deceased, therefore, the accused being frustrated, finished the deceased. The rifle i.e. weapon of offence was recovered from the house of the accused. 16. He has stated that since the love affair could not reach the climax of marriage between the accused and the deceased, therefore, the accused being frustrated, finished the deceased. The rifle i.e. weapon of offence was recovered from the house of the accused. 16. Having scanned the records of the case and impugned judgment as well as having scrutinised the evidence, we are inclined to accept the submissions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. It is a blind murder case. The prosecution has sought to support the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The only evidence with the prosecution is that of (i) last seen (ii) the surrendering of accused and the admission made by the father of the accused in D.D.R. (iii) the recovery of weapon of offence. 18. The Apex Court time and again has laid down five golden r principles constituting the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which are reproduced as under:­ 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one due to be proved, and 5. There must be a chain of complete evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Shree Ram Sharma v. State of U.P., 1989 (3) Crimes 456) 19. The crux of the law as laid down up to date, the following are essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence:­ 1. The circumstantial from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved. 2. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature. 3. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; 4. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. 20. The circumstantial from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved. 2. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature. 3. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; 4. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. 20. In the instant case, trial court has slapped the conviction upon the accused on the basis of the evidence of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) and Ashutosh Arora (PW-8), the evidence of last seen was disclosed by Madan Mohan Arora, Ashutosh Arora received a phone call about taking of his sister by some one towards Panchkula. The surrendering of the accused coupled with the admission of G.R. Vinayak, father of the accused before K.P. Singh, Inspector, Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh has been proved by Sh.K.P. Singh, Inspector (PW- 2). The recovery of cartridge and rifle from the house of the accused, and recovery of crime cartridge P-11 near the dead body established by Mohinder Lal, Investigating Officer. 21. Now we lay our hands to determine as to whether the aforesaid circumstances have been duly established if so then whether the same could be treated as sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court for unerringly pointing towards the appellant as a person responsible for the commission of the crime. 22. There is no denying the fact that the accused and the deceased were class fellows at Uptron Computer Center at Sector-8, Chandigarh. However, the fact that the accused was visiting frequently to the house of the deceased and had developed intimacy, has still remained unestablished. Nevertheless, brother of the deceased, who was projected to prove relationship between the accused and the deceased, could not withstand the test of cross­examination, as he, at very initial stage of his examination could not expose about the relationship of his own and it was only on the asking of the leading questions, he disclosed about the relationship and conversation with regard to marriage. Regarding the visits of the accused, he has not uttered a word that the accused was on frequent visiting terms at their house rather he has stated the accused came to their house once or twice. Regarding the visits of the accused, he has not uttered a word that the accused was on frequent visiting terms at their house rather he has stated the accused came to their house once or twice. At this juncture, we do not hesitate to condemn the conduct of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5), who had stated that he had seen the accused and the deceased previously at the residence of Mohan Lal Arora once or twice as he is neither a close relative nor the neighbour of Mohan Lal Arora. 23. Now coming to the motive the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statement of Ashutosh Arora (PW8), brother of the deceased who stated that an offer of marriage was received by his father and the same was turned down by them as well as by the deceased, therefore, the accused committed the crime. Admittedly, he was not told by the accused and his statement is hear say. Mohan Lal Arora, his father was not examined. He had not seen the accused committing the crime and he was intimated through a unanimous call that the deceased was being taken forcibly by some one in the car. He admits that he lodged an FIR on suspicion. The refusal of marriage at the instance of the deceased or by her parent: could not be said to be such a strong circumstance to constitute motive for commission of the crime. First of all such relation could only be established in mutuality. Secondly this fact could not be established by direct evidence even though available. Assuming for the sake of argument if the accused had love for the deceased, but there is no evidence of love lost but it was stated only that there was refusal to turn the relations into matrimonial. 24. Admittedly, the deceased came from Chandigarh to Panchkula with the accused in his car and was seen by Madan Mohan Arora (PW5). Had there been any resistance on the part of the deceased then she should not have joined his company and come all the way from Chandigarh to Panchkula with the accused in his car. If she had been taken forcibly, then she would raise hue and cry and attract any of the passer bye of the occupants of the vehicles by crossing the car or the police people standing on the roundabouts at Chandigarh and Panchkula. If she had been taken forcibly, then she would raise hue and cry and attract any of the passer bye of the occupants of the vehicles by crossing the car or the police people standing on the roundabouts at Chandigarh and Panchkula. Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) who sighted them in the car did not utter a word. If the deceased was reacting to her forcible custody, rather he stated that she was sitting by the side of the accused. He took it in routine. The law cannot be made witch-hunting on the basis of unplausible explanation or assumptions but is bound in the thread of legally permissible evidence but no such evidence has come forth that the accused was so disturbed, frustrated and turned desperate and this frustration led him to take this drastic step to eliminate one, who was part of his heart. Thus, we do not approve the view taken by the trial court that the accused had any motive to kill her. 25. Now coming to the evidence of last seen, the statement of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) is shorn of any truth and does not carry such credentials so as inspire confidence of the court. He appears to be a chance as well as interested witness. From his testimony, it transpires that he was familiar with the affairs of the family and knew about the controversy over the matrimonial proposals between the accused and the deceased. According to him, the deceased and her brother were not agreeable to the marriage. Therefore, in normal circumstances, he having seen the deceased at noon time on the day of occurrence along with the accused must have immediately informed her father as the issue was controversial. His this silence throughout the day signifies his doubtful conduct. He disclosed about their joint movements only when he was informed by Mohan Lal father of the deceased about the occurrence at 8.00 PM. His deposition before the police only after he was informed by Mohan Lal suggests nothing but his induction as a witness to strengthen the prosecution case. The story that he had seen the accused in company of the deceased in his car also seems to be improbable. He could not disclose the number of the car in which they were going. The story that he had seen the accused in company of the deceased in his car also seems to be improbable. He could not disclose the number of the car in which they were going. He did not disclose about the purpose of his visit to Panchkula in his initial statement but later on the made improvement that he had gone to see Dharam Pal in connection with the elections. The time regarding his having seen in his car at 1.00 PM also is a deviation from his earlier statement. He disclosed in the examination-in-chief that he saw the deceased at 12.00 noon in the car whereas in his cross-examination he disclosed that he saw the deceased at 1.00 PM. His this statement that he had seen the deceased in the car with the accused across the road also suffers from another serious improbability. He has stated that he had seen them from across the road. He admits that a divider between the road is three feet and there is a brick fencing which is of 2½ feet high. The width of the divider and the height of the fencing on the divider has been duly proved by Sh. Surinder Kumar, Draftsman DWI as well as Gurcharan Singh, Photographer DW-2. Sh.Surinder Kumar, DW-1 has stated that the width of the divider on the main road is about 5 feet and there is 4½ feet high fencing, which has been developed since 1994. Under these circumstances, in our view, it was not possible for PW-5-Madan Mohan Arora to see the accused and the deceased in the car from a distance of five meters through fencing as told by him. He being frequent visitor to the house of Mohan Lal, (father of the deceased) and having stayed with him throughout the night of occurrence and knowing about the controversy going in the family, appears to be big sympathizer and interested witness. The conduct of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) could not be justified as he had no where stated that he had seen the deceased and the accused together moving in the car of the latter off and on at odd places or at odd hours. The conduct of Madan Mohan Arora (PW-5) could not be justified as he had no where stated that he had seen the deceased and the accused together moving in the car of the latter off and on at odd places or at odd hours. He being a mature person of 46 years and knowing the socio-cultural mileu to which he seemingly belongs this pigeon like conduct if it was true, would make him partner in the crime from a moral angle, if not in the eyes of law. His this behaviour that he treated it as a routine matter, so there was nothing special to inform the parents of the deceased of having seen the two lovers together itself intensifies our mind to dub him as untruthful witness. 26. The trial court had also not taken the correct view while appreciating the evidence of the Ballistic Expert. The cartridge report given by PW-12 Dr.L.A. Kumar, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, reads as under:- 1) The rifle Ex.P-14 had been fired through. However, scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be given. 2) The rifle Ex.P-14 was found in working order. 3) The .30 fired cartridge case Ex.P-11 has not been fired from Ex.P-14. 4) Exhibits examined in the ballastic division were resealed alongwith their original wrappers with the seal of (D.D. Bali). FSL.H.” 27. Admittedly, the cartridge Ex.P11 was recovered before the weapon was not recovered. Therefore the same could not be said to have been changed at the hands of appellant or the Expert. The recovery of the rifle was effected on 11.5.1996 and the same was forwarded through constable Rajesh Kumar No. 653 on 16.5.1996 and was deposited on the same day with the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. The testimony of this Rajesh Kumar was not challenged on the grounds that the rifle as well as cartridge were tempered with during transit and on the other hand, the report Ex. PD also transpires that till the analysis the rifle as well as the crime cartridge as also the test cartridge were intact. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the shot fired in the head of the deceased was from a country made pistol because the recovery of the rifle was effected and the prosecution tried to contact the rifle with crime. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the shot fired in the head of the deceased was from a country made pistol because the recovery of the rifle was effected and the prosecution tried to contact the rifle with crime. But the said foundation laid by the prosecution could not bear the burden of castles and has been demolished by the report made by Dr. L.A. Kumar which reveals to the contrary. No other report has been submitted by the prosecution so as to say that the cartridge was fired from the same rifle or that the accused projected having fired from the rifle but actually he fired from the country made pistol. 28. The surrender of the accused by his father before Inspector K.P. Singh and admission by his father regarding commission of the crime by his son has also not passed the test of reliability. DDR recorded by him in Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh seems to be replete with motivation and anxiety to create evidence. The acts which should or ought to have been done in the normal circumstances by the persons having normal habits if done in unusual manner not acceptable to the human conscience are treated to be not filing in the preponderance of probabilities which is taken major parameter for Criminal Justice Delivery System. Chandigarh and Panchkula are twin cities and attached to each other. The Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh was not the appropriate place when his father being retired Colonel allegedly knew that the accused had committed the murder at Panchkula. In such situation, obviously Mr. G.R. Vinayak, who retired from Indian Army, if so desired, would have taken him to the Police Station Panchkula and made confession there. As argued, the intention to surrender his son by his father possibly was with the motive to save him from third degree methods to be applied by police but in such situation he would have either surrendered him before any higher authority or the court concerned but it was not so done. Moreover, Report Nos. 26 and 29 got entered for surrendering the accused and handing him over to ASI Karan Singh do not bear the signatures of G.R.Vinayak. Moreover, Report Nos. 26 and 29 got entered for surrendering the accused and handing him over to ASI Karan Singh do not bear the signatures of G.R.Vinayak. In the normal situation, had he really taken the accused and conferred guilt on behalf of his son before the police of the Police Station Sector-34 Chandigarh then he atleast would have either moved an application before Inspector, K.P. Singh or Sh. K.P. Singh would have got his signatures over the DDR recorded by him regarding surrendering or handing over the accused to ASI Karan Singh then posted at Division No.2 located in Sector-5, Panchkula. The testimony of Karan Singh also gives corroboration to our opinion that the DDR has been recorded some time later in order to create false evidence. 29. It may further be highlighted that both the reports are ante timed. According to K.P. Singh, Inspector the accused was produced at 4.10 PM on 9.5.1996 and thereafter he sent an intimation to SHO Police Station Panchkula. In such situation, in normal courses, the SHO Police Station, Panchkula would have informed ASI Karan Singh and then he came to the Police Station, Sector­ 34, Chandigarh. While calculating roughly, at least one hour in this process must have been consumed, but ASI Karan Singh has stated that he received information while he was present in a show room at Sector-11, Panchkula at 3/3­15 PM on 9.5.1996. Then he reached the bus stand Chandigarh (obviously by bus) and he took a three wheeler and went to the Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh. Therefore, necessary inference which could be drawn from the aforesaid evidence is that the reports were constructed after the arrest of the accused sometimes late in the night to plug the hole so as to explain how the accused was arrested and how they came to know about the accused. 30. The recovery of weapon of offence in the instant case was effected on 11.5.1996 despite the fact that the accused was arrested on 9.5.1996. If it were really so, then the police would have enabled the accused to put the weapon beyond the reach of the police even in some legal justifiable manner, since the licence was in the name of the father of the accused and not in his own name. Obviously, the police should/could never taken this risk. 31. If it were really so, then the police would have enabled the accused to put the weapon beyond the reach of the police even in some legal justifiable manner, since the licence was in the name of the father of the accused and not in his own name. Obviously, the police should/could never taken this risk. 31. The laxity on the part of Investigating Officer has also contributed to create dent in the prosecution case, he did not make any evidence to collect evidence if the deceased was actually studying in the Uptron Computer Center at the time of occurrence. No record showing her attendance in the said institute has been collected. No such evidence for showing as to why her Kinectic Honda Scooter was found parked in the Punjab University on the next day, whereas she had gone to attend the cooking class in Sector-34, Chandigarh and what made her to take to Punjab University Chandigarh is also a mystery. The delay in receipt of special report in such circumstances of the case also contributes to raise suspicion in our mind over the commission of the crime at the hands of the accused. 32. Occurrence allegedly took place at 1.00 PM and the FIR was completed at about 3.45 PM but the same reached before IlIaqa Magistrate on the next day i.e. 10.5.1996 at 6.40 AM. Particularly, when the courts of the IlIaqa Magistrate are located at Panchkula at a short distance. In fact it appears that, the occurrence took place in a deserted cornor of the park and the injury­appears to have been caused from a distance beyond the vision of the deceased. Therefore, the accused could not be only the person to be present in park for attacking her. Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, brought forward by the prosecution cannot be said to be complete so as to reach the only conclusion pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence led by the prosecution do not compel the conscience of the Court to reach the conclusion that it was none else but the accused who had committed the crime. 33. Having scanned the impugned judgment we are of the opinion that the aforesaid circumstances were not taken into consideration and deliberations made by it were not in the right perspective as such the interference at our end has become inevitable. 33. Having scanned the impugned judgment we are of the opinion that the aforesaid circumstances were not taken into consideration and deliberations made by it were not in the right perspective as such the interference at our end has become inevitable. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charge framed against him. He is directed to be set at liberty. Bail bonds and surety bond furnished by him are discharged. --------------------