JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.:-The appellants – Raghubir, Om Parkash, Ran Singh, Bhana Ram, Taramani, Daya Kaur and Birmati challenge their conviction and sentence for the murder of Mandrup son of Richhpal on 18.9.1993. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Bhana Ram, appellant has died. The appeal qua Bhana Ram will, thus, stand dismissed as abated. We proceed to consider the case of other appellants on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution as per version given by PW-3 Satbir Singh, brother of the deceased, is that a quarrel took place between his family members and family members of his uncle Bhana Ram accused regarding path of a plot. Har Narain son of Bhana Ram was killed and a case was registered against Satbir Singh and his family members. Five persons were convicted and sentenced including Mandrup deceased, who had come on parole on the date of occurrence. When he was returning home from the field at 10-00 A.M., Raghubir Singh and Ran Singh sons of Bhana Ram, Om Parkash son of Har Narain apprehended Mandrup and kidnapped him and took him towards their farmhouse. Taramani, Daya Kaur and Birmati also helped them. Bhana Ram was also present. They made Mandrup to fall. Om Parkash caught hold of his left hand, Ran Singh caught hold of his right hand, Daya Kaur and Taramani caught hold of his feet and Bhana Ram and Birmati caught hold of his head. Raghubir made him to drink something forcibly. Mandrup raised alarm. When Satbir went near him, Bhana Ram and Ran Singh tried to apprehend him, on account of which he ran away. He explained the occurrence to Mewa Devi PW-4, wife of his brother Ram Sarup. They together went to save Mandrup and found him coming in staggering manner and he disclosed that he had been administered some poisonous substance. He was brought home where he vomited. When he was being taken for treatment to the doctor at Bhiwani City, he died on the way. After leaving his sister-in-law to guard the dead body, he proceeded to inform the police. His statement was recorded by ASI Raja Ram on the same day, which led to registration of FIR. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. Since no action was taken by the police, complaint was filed on 11.10.1993. The accused were summoned and committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. His statement was recorded by ASI Raja Ram on the same day, which led to registration of FIR. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. Since no action was taken by the police, complaint was filed on 11.10.1993. The accused were summoned and committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. M.K. Garg, PW- 2 Net Ram, Assistant Constable of Police Station, Behal, PW-3 Satbir, complainant and PW-4 Mewa Devi. 5. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that Mandrup committed suicide and, therefore, cancellation report was submitted by the police after investigation. The accused examined DW-1 Ranbir Singh, Retired Sub Inspector, DW-2 Gaje Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, DW-3 Rama Nand, resident of the same village and also tendered in evidence Ex.DC copy of FSL report, Ex.DD copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., Ex.DE cancellation report dated 20.3.1993 and Ex.DF copy of zimni. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be proved and convicted the accused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the version of the prosecution and role attributed to the accused was highly improbable. It was a case of suicide. According to PW-1 Dr. M.K. Garg, alluminium phosphide poison was available in tablet form and there could be no question of administering poison from the steel glass. It was also pointed out that Satbir Singh PW-3 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.9.1993 Ex.DA stated that the deceased consumed liquor and declared that he will commit suicide by jumping into the well. He took some tablets of poison meant for being used in wheat grain and started vomiting. He was taken to the hospital, but died on the way. He had given false version implicating the accused. 9. According to PW-1 Dr. M.K. Garg, who conducted post-mortem, cause of death was due to alluminium phosphide poison. He was unable to state whether the said poison was soluble in water or not. 10. PW-3 Satbir, appearing as a witness in the Court, supported the version given by him in the FIR in the examination-in-chief but in cross-examination, he contradicted the said version and stated that he had not mentioned that Bhana Ram or Birmati had caught hold of Mandrup. 10. PW-3 Satbir, appearing as a witness in the Court, supported the version given by him in the FIR in the examination-in-chief but in cross-examination, he contradicted the said version and stated that he had not mentioned that Bhana Ram or Birmati had caught hold of Mandrup. He had also not mentioned that Mandrup was seen staggering while coming home. He further stated that he made his statement on the basis of information given by Mandrup. He also made contradiction in the FIR that he had mentioned that Mandrup had submitted an application Ex.PF to the police. He also made a contradiction that in his earlier version, he had mentioned that Mandrup had taken support of his shoulder. He denied having made statement Ex.DA dated 24.9.1993. PW-4 Mewa Devi wife of Ram Sarup has not fully supported the version of Satbir but stated that Mandrup told her and Satbir that seven accused had forcibly administered poison to him. 11. We find that it is not safe to uphold conviction of the appellants. PW-3 Satbir and PW-4 Mewa Devi have only deposed about earlier dying declaration made by the deceased before them. Version given by Satbir PW-3, who earlier claimed to be an eyewitness, is full of discrepancies and material contradictions. There is previous enmity, on account of which, the deceased as well as Satbir and other family members including the deceased Mandrup had been convicted for the murder. In this background and in absence of reliable and consistent version, the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. It will, thus, not be safe to uphold conviction and sentence of the appellants. It is well settled that burden of proof is on the prosecution and in absence of satisfactory evidence, the accused get the benefit of doubt. 12. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 13.The appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants are set-aside and they are acquitted. ----------------