Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. Jaswinder Kaur alias Bholi, Garib Dass and Sewa Singh). Jaswinder Kaur had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 108-DB of 2001 through Jail against that very indictment. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No. 108-DB of 2001 is concerned, it is dismissed as abated as it is common ground that Jaswinder Kaur had died in the meantime. Criminal Appeal No. 181-DB of 1999 qua Jaswinder Kaur shall also stand dismissed as abated. 2. A reference to the prosecution presentation in the first instance would be helpful in appreciating the controversy before this Court. Jaswinder kaur having been deserted by her husband long ago, was residing in the present accommodation (Markfed Chowk, Preet Nagar Mohalla, Kapurthala), along with her son i.e. appellant - Garib Dass. Appellant - Sewa Singh is her paramour. Parkash deceased (a brother of first informant/PW2 - Subhash Lal) was also on visiting terms with Jaswinder Kaur and vice versa. There were times when Parkash would not be home at night and he had to be fetched from the house of Jaswinder Kaur by PW2 - Subhash Lal. 3. On 17.05.1997, Parkash did not come home from the shop even after the closing hours were over. It was at about midnight that his daughter informed PW2 - Subhash Lal about that fact. Thereupon, Subhash Lal came over to the house of Jaswinder Kaur. When he entered the court yard of her house, he heard a raula. He saw through the window that his brother Parkash had been felled by Jaswinder Kaur, Garib Dass and Sewa Singh upon a cot and the trio were belabouring him. He pleaded with the appellants to spare Parkash. On this, the appellants held out a threat that Subhash Lal should get away from the spot. They further announced that they would be doing away with Parkash. Subhash Lal came back from there and brought the facts to the notice of his uncle (fathers younger brother) Vir Singh and, then, both of them came over to the house of Jaswinder Kaur to fetch Parkash. When they reached there at about 3 a.m., they found that the outer door of the house was locked. They looked for Parkash but in vain. When they reached there at about 3 a.m., they found that the outer door of the house was locked. They looked for Parkash but in vain. When they were returning to the house on 18.05.1997 at about 8.30 A.M., they found the dead body of Parkash lying in the bushes near the canal bridge on Kala Sanghian - Nakodar road. PW2 - Subhash Lal left his uncle Vir Singh to guard the dead body and was on way to the Police Station when he across the police party in Chaubatia Chowk, Kapurthala. It was there that Subhash Lal notified the offence to the police, vide statement Ex.PD. 4. The police party accompanied Subhash Lal gone to the house of Jaswinder Kaur where the only room under her possession was found locked. A half burnt T-Shirt, which Parkash was wearing when he went over to the house of Jaswinder Kaur, was lying in earthen hearth. The prosecution examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses at the trial. PW1 - Dr. Raj Kumar had (along with two other members of the Medical Board, namely, Dr. Gurbachan Singh and Dr. Hussan Lal Mehmi) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Parkash on 18.05.1997 and had found the following injuries on it :- "1. A ligature mark of 1 cm (breadth) present on the front neck. Starting from angle of mandible on right side and passing obliquely in front of neck at the level of thyroid cartilage and extending upto 5 cm below the left angle of mandible. 2. A bluish contusion measuring 3 cm x 3 cm on the anterior lateral aspect of the right arm 5 cm below the top of the shoulder. 3. A bluish contusion measuring 3 cm x 2 cm oblique 5 cm below injury No. 2. 4. A bluish contusion measuring 4 cm x 3 cm at the center of the left clavicle. 5. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x .5 cm and 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the front of right leg in the centre." 5. On dissection, the Medical Board further found as under : "Neck : The subcutaneous tissue, muscles and vessels lying below the ligature were congested. The thyroid cartilage fractured. The lyranx and traches were congested and contained blood stain secretion. Chest : The walls were healthy, plurae congested, no fluid in the pleural cavity. Both the lungs congested. On dissection, the Medical Board further found as under : "Neck : The subcutaneous tissue, muscles and vessels lying below the ligature were congested. The thyroid cartilage fractured. The lyranx and traches were congested and contained blood stain secretion. Chest : The walls were healthy, plurae congested, no fluid in the pleural cavity. Both the lungs congested. The heart was full of blood. Abdomen : The walls, peritoneum healthy, No blood present in peritoneal cavity. Stomach was full of semi solid material. Small and large intestines, spleen, liver and kidneys were health. Bladder empty. Organs of external generation health. Head and skull : Scalp and skull were healthy, the membranes and brain congested." 6. The Board further opined that the death had occurred due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW2 - Subhash Lal is a brother of the deceased and also the first informant. PW3 - Ravinder Pal Singh is the one before whom the trio (Garib Dass and Sewa Singh - appellants and deceased appellant - Jaswinder Kaur) had made extra judicial confession. PW4 - Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh is the one who, on the request of Jaswinder Kaur, went over to her house and Jaswinder Kaur had sought his help for sending Parkash to his village because he was abusing her and her son under the influence of liquor. On reaching her house, Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh found that Parkash was dead. PW5 - Charanjit Singh, an Architect, had prepared scaled site plans Ex.PF and Ex.PG, on the request of the police. PW6 - Constable Makha Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PH), representing formal evidence, into evidence. PW7 - SI Sadhu Singh, then posted as City Incharge, Police Station City Kapurthala, had investigated the case. 7. Appellant Garib Dass pleaded innocence and so also did appellant Sewa Singh. 8. No evidence was adduced in defence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined their respective contentions in their relatability to the material obtaining on the file. We are of the considered opinion that the Criminal Appeal No. 181-DB of 1999 deserves to be allowed (to the extent it relates to the surviving appellants - Garib Dass and Sewa Singh). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined their respective contentions in their relatability to the material obtaining on the file. We are of the considered opinion that the Criminal Appeal No. 181-DB of 1999 deserves to be allowed (to the extent it relates to the surviving appellants - Garib Dass and Sewa Singh). The reasons therefor are indicated as under :- As would be apparent from a perusal of the above quoted presentation made by the prosecution at the trial, the incriminating evidence against the appellants consists of the ocular version testified on oath by PW2 - Subhash Lal (Vir Singh, whom PW2 - Subhash Lal fetched to the spot, was not examined at the trial) and an extra judicial confession made by the appellants before PW3 - Ravinder Pal Singh. We would deal with the incriminating evidence hereunder. 9. First informant Subhash Lal (PW2) categorically testified that he had witnessed his brother Parkash being belaboured by the appellants and deceased appellant - Jaswinder Kaur), that he called upon the appellants to tell him the reasons on account of which they were belabouring Parkash, that he had requested the appellants to spare Parkash, that the appellants held out a threat he should get away from there if he wanted his welfare and that the appellants (and the deceased appellant) further told him that they would be killing Parkash. In spite thereof, he averred that "I did not go to any Panch or Sarpanch and rather I went straight to Vir Singh. Even after meeting Vir Singh, I did not go to any body else and straight way came with him to the house of the accused." It is also in his testimony that if one proceeds from the house of Jaswinder Kaur to his village Talwandi Mehma, there is a turning enroute from where the Police Station is at the distance of 400-500 yards. He did not go to the police to notify his apprehension to the police. The plea made by him that he refrained from going to the police for lodging the report as it was quite dark is neither here nor there. He did not go to the police to notify his apprehension to the police. The plea made by him that he refrained from going to the police for lodging the report as it was quite dark is neither here nor there. Here was a person who had, as per his averment, seen his real brother being belaboured by Jaswinder Kaur (whom Parkash used to visit frequently), her paramour and her own son who had, besides holding out a threat to him to get away from the spot, had also announced that they would be killing Parkash. In spite thereof, this witness did not consider it appropriate to get into touch with any village functionary. He also did not get into touch with the police. He rest content by going over to the house of his uncle Vir Singh. His conduct does not fit in with the conduct expected of a person circumstanced like him. His first and the only anxiety under the circumstances would have been to bring facts to the notice of the police and/or the village functionaries in a bid to ensure that his brother was saved. His conduct in having refrained from contacting the police or any village functionary is incomprehensive on the touch stone of natural human conduct. It requires also particular notice in the context that the prosecution did not examine Vir Singh at the trial to own the role attributed to him. 10. Insofar as PW3 - Ravinder Pal Singh is concerned, he wants the Court to believe that each accused had made an individual extra judicial confession before him. In a bid to validate the averment, he tried to make an averment that each accused had made individual extra judicial confession before him. However, under the stress of cross-examination, he had to concede that "it is not recorded in Ex.DA that accused individually made the above statement". He averred that he had told the police (in the course of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) that Jaswinder Kaur was the first to make an extra judicial confession before him. He was confronted with Ex.DA (a copy of his purported statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) which does not contain an averment to the above effect. He did not offer any explanation for the omission of that fact from his statement. He was confronted with Ex.DA (a copy of his purported statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) which does not contain an averment to the above effect. He did not offer any explanation for the omission of that fact from his statement. He further claimed to have told the police that Jaswinder kaur told him that Parkash deceased came over to her house after consuming liquor and had started abusing her. He was confronted with the statement Ex.DA wherein that fact also does not stand recorded. There is plethora of law on the point that a joint extra judicial confession, apart from being unnatural, has no legal implication to adversely affect the interest of the maker thereof. It is perhaps in his endeavour to get out of that legal wrangle that PW3 - Ravinder Pal Singh made an averment that all the accused had made individual and separate extra judicial confession. For want of any corresponding averment in the course of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., we do not propose relying upon the testimony of this witness, particularly when the above indicated facts having a relevant bearing on the culpability of the appellants in the impugned crime, have been found omitted from the statement. This witness made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has not been able to aver any explanation with regard to the omissions above indicated. Insofar as PW4 - Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh is concerned, he too would appear to be a witness who had been falsely introduced into the case. This inference of ours is buttressed by the fact that his name does not at all figure in the First Information Report. If he had actually been present at the indicated time, there is no reason why first informant would not made a mention of that fact in the earliest presentation to the police. With the finding that the testimony of PW2 - Subhash Lal and PW3 - Ravinder Pal Singh does not inspire confidence and with further finding that PW4 - Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh appears to have been falsely introduced into the case, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned finding of indictment. 11. Yet another interesting angle affects the validity of the prosecution plea. 11. Yet another interesting angle affects the validity of the prosecution plea. It is in the statement of PW4 - Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh that he had been, in turn, informed by Jaswinder Kaur that Parkash deceased was hurling abuses (upon her and her son) under the influence of liquor. The Medical Board did not find any odour of alcohol in abdomen, lungs and brain. PW1 - Dr. Raj Kumar further opined that "if alcohol has been consumed by the deceased before death, this odour will be perceptible in lungs, brain and stomach unless putrification faction starts. In case of Parkash deceased putrification had not started." That part of medical segment falsifies the presentation made by PW4 - Sunder alias Jaswinder Singh to the above effect. 12. Before closing this judgment, we would also pointedly notice that PW2 - Subhash Lal displayed a thoroughly incomprehensive conduct by expecting the Court to believe that in spite of his not having been able to trace his brother Parkash for full one day, he opted to refrain from going to the police or bringing facts to the notice of any village functionary. This type of casual attitude cannot be expected from a person who had been told by the appellants on the previous day itself that they would do Parkash to death and the first informant had himself fled the spot, being in a state of fearfulness on account of the threat given to him by the appellants (and the deceased appellant - Jaswinder Kaur). 13. In the light of foregoing discussion, this appeal preferred by the appellants - Garib Dass and Sewa Singh succeeds. We hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appeal shall stand allowed and the appellants - Garib Dass and Sewa Singh are acquitted of the charge.