Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 18 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2009-01-07

K.S.GAREWAL, SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment SHAM SUNDER, J. 1. This appeal is directed, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 05.02.1999, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellants) and sentenced them as under: Names of the accused (now appellants) Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1 2 3 (a) Darshan Singh (a) Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Imprisonment for life each and to pay Rs.5000/-each, as fine. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each. (b) Jagjit Singh (c) Sewa Singh (d) Leela Singh (e) Gurpiara Singh (b) Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigqrous imprisonment, for a period of one month each. (a) Darshan Singh (a) Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment, for three years each and to pay Rs.1000/- each, as fine, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one month each. (b) Sewa Singh (c) Gurpiara Singh The substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2 The facts of the prosecution case, as summarized, proceeded in the manner, that on 22.11.1991, Sukhdev Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of village Dhindsa, District Sangrur (Punjab), had come to Tohana along with his uncle Shyam Singh, in connection with some personal work. They could not get bus, for their return journey. Thus, they were going along Tohana-Chandigarh road, in the hope, that they would come across some passing truck, and take a lift therein, for return to their village. At about 6.00 p.m., a red coloured truck, parked on the road side, was noticed by them. The registration number of the truck was not visible, as the mud was sticking, on its number plate. There was light, in the cabin of the driver of the truck. Two Sikh gentlemen of young age were found sitting in the cabin. A jeep of green colour, parked on the road side, was also noticed by them. Two Sikh and one clean shaven youth, were seen by them, sitting in the jeep, in the light thereof. There was light, in the cabin of the driver of the truck. Two Sikh gentlemen of young age were found sitting in the cabin. A jeep of green colour, parked on the road side, was also noticed by them. Two Sikh and one clean shaven youth, were seen by them, sitting in the jeep, in the light thereof. In the meanwhile, Major Singh, brother of Sukhdev Singh, came from the direction of Munak, riding a motor-cycle, bearing No. DBW-4004. One person was the pillion rider of the motor-cycle. When the driver of the truck saw the motor-cycle, coming from the opposite direction, he switched on the engine of the same (truck) and moved the same (truck), in the direction of the motor-cycle. The side of the truck was hit against the motor-cycle, as a result whereof, it fell down. The pillion rider came under the motor-cycle, on account of strike of the side of the truck, against the same. Major Singh, the rider thereof, started fleeing towards the fields. Three young men, who were occupants of the jeep, fired shots, from pistols, at the pillion rider who was lying under the motor-cycle. Thereafter, they chased Major Singh, in the fields, with their jeep. Major Singh, left the fields and tried to take shelter in a shop. One young man, then fired a shot from pistol, from a close range, at Major Singh, which hit the left side of his temple. Major Singh fell down. The second occupant of the jeep then fired a shot from his pistol, which hit Major Singh, on the right side of his abdomen. Thereafter, the assailants fled with the jeep, and the truck towards Munak. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, went near the place where, Major Singh, and the pillion rider of the motor-cycle were lying, and found that they had succumbed to the/fire arm injuries, caused on their person, by the assailants. 3. The motive for the occurrence, was stated by Sukhdev Singh, in the manner, that his brother Major Singh, had illicit relations with Guddi, daughter of Bhagwan Singh Arora, resident of Tohana, whose husband Palla had already died. After the death of Palla, Major Singh, was cultivating 25 acres of agriculture land, inherited by Guddi, from her former husband Palla. Guddi and Major Singh, were living together, at Tohana. After the death of Palla, Major Singh, was cultivating 25 acres of agriculture land, inherited by Guddi, from her former husband Palla. Guddi and Major Singh, were living together, at Tohana. He suspected that his brother Major Singh and the person accompanying him, on the pillion of the motor-cycle, were liquidated, at the instance of Bhagwan Singh Arora and Mahender Singh, residents of village Chander Khurd, by their men. It was further stated that he (Sukhdev Singh) and his uncle Shyam Singh, could identify the assailants, if they come across them. 4. After leaving his uncle, Shyam Singh, to guard the dead-bodies aforesaid, he went to the Police Station and made statement PQ, in the aforesaid manner, which formed the basis of recording the First Information Report. 5. Thereafter, Shiv Dayal, Sub-Inspector/ Station House Officer of the Police Station, reached the spot, and got the photographs of the same taken. Karnail Singh, Incharge Finger Prints Team, was present at the spot. The spot was got inspected from him. The inquest reports PR of the dead-body of Major Singh, deceased, and PS of the dead-body of Gurjant Singh, deceased, were prepared by Shiv Dayal. Station House Officer. The dead-body of Gurjant Singh, was identified by Gurdev Singh and Ajmer Singh, whereas, the dead-body of Major Singh, was identified by Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, his relations. Application PT, to get the postmortem examination conducted, on the dead-body of Major Singh and PU, to get the postmortem examination conducted, on the dead-body of Gurjant Singh, were moved by Shiv Dayal, Station House Officer, before the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tohana, who conducted the same. 6. From the spot, Shiv Dayal, lifted the moulds of the tyres of the vehicles. The same were taken into possession, vide seizure memo exhibit PV. The statements of Karnail Singh and Shyam Singh, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, at the spot, on 22.11.1991. The site plan exhibit PW of the place of occurrence was prepared by Shiv Dayal, Station House Officer. 7. On 23.11.1991, the blood stained earth, from the spot, a chhadar, having blood stains, two turbans and two pairs of shoes, were lifted from the spot. The same were converted into different parcels, duly sealed with the seals, bearing impression SD. The motor-cycle, bearing No. DBW-4004, and its registration certificate, were also lifted from the spot. 7. On 23.11.1991, the blood stained earth, from the spot, a chhadar, having blood stains, two turbans and two pairs of shoes, were lifted from the spot. The same were converted into different parcels, duly sealed with the seals, bearing impression SD. The motor-cycle, bearing No. DBW-4004, and its registration certificate, were also lifted from the spot. The aforesaid articles, were taken into possession, vide memo PG, attested by Jagrup Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Avtar. Ram Chander, Constable, had given two parcels, containing the clothes of deceased Major Singh, handed over to him, after post-mortem examination of his dead-body, which were taken into possession, vide memo exhibit PX. Dharam Pal, Constable, gave a parcel, containing clothes of Gurjant Singh, deceased, which were handed over to him, after conducting post-mortem examination, which was taken into possession, vide memo PY. 8. On 29.11.1991, a secret information, with regard to the whereabouts of all the accused was received, by Shiv Dayal, Station House Officer. A picket was held, by him, on Punjab & Haryana border, on the road, leading to Chandigarh-Tohana. In the meanwhile, Darshan Singh, came in a truck, whereas, Leela Singh, came in a jeep, along with Gurpiara Singh, Sewa Singh and Jagjit Singh. They were stopped and arrested, in this case. Truck bearing No. HRF 5297, the driver whereof, was Darshan Singh, at that time, was, also taken into possession, vide seizure memo PP. Sewa Singh, was having a chhadar wrapped around him. A broken gun and two cartridges were found underneath the same. The same were taken into possession, vide seizure memo PL, after preparing the sketch thereof, PM. 9. On search of Leela Singh, it was found, that he was having a 12 bore pistol and two live cartridges, in the right fold of his chhadar. The same were converted into parcels, and taken into possession, vide seizure memo PJ, after preparing sketch PI of the same. 10. The personal search of Gurpiara Singh, was also conducted. It was found that he was having a 12 bore country-made pistol, and two live cartridges, in the pocket of the pant, worn by him. The same were converted into parcels, and taken into possession, vide seizure memo PN, after preparing the sketch PM thereof. Jeep bearing registration No. HNG 5658, was also taken into possession, vide seizure memo PO. It was found that he was having a 12 bore country-made pistol, and two live cartridges, in the pocket of the pant, worn by him. The same were converted into parcels, and taken into possession, vide seizure memo PN, after preparing the sketch PM thereof. Jeep bearing registration No. HNG 5658, was also taken into possession, vide seizure memo PO. Site plan of the place PZ, where the accused were arrested, was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 11. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received, by commitment, charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, against Darshan Singh and Jagjit Singh, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, against Sewa Singh, Leela Singh and Gurpiara Singh, as also, under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, against all the accused, was framed, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 12. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Pala Ram, Patwari Halqa Tohana (PW1), who prepared the scaled site-plan PA, Jagrup Singh son of Pritam Singh (PW2), brother-in-law of Major Singh, deceased, in whose presence, the Police lifted blood stained earth, one chhadar, from near the shop, along with pair of shoes, from the fields and took the same into possession, vide memo PG, Amar Singh (PW3), a photographer, who went to the spot, on 22.11.1991, on the request of the Police, and took the photographs PG/1 to PG/8, the negatives whereof, are PG/9 to PG/16, Guddi wife of Tej Parkash (PW4), who did not support the case of the prosecution, regarding motive that she was allegedly having illicit relations with Major Singh, Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW5), who associated with the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, Sukhdev Singh (PW6) and Shyam Singh (PW7), the eye-witnesses, Shiv Dayal, Sub Inspector, the then Station House Officer of the Police Station, Investigating Officer (PW8), Dr. Prem Verma (PW9), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Gurjant Singh and Dr. Sunil Sethi (PW10), who conducted the postmortem examination, on the dead-body of Major Singh. 13. Prem Verma (PW9), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Gurjant Singh and Dr. Sunil Sethi (PW10), who conducted the postmortem examination, on the dead-body of Major Singh. 13. The Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar, exhibit DB, affidavit of Prem Pal, Constable, exhibit DC, affidavit of Ramesh Chander, Constable, exhibit PD, affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Constable, exhibit PE, reports of the Chemical Examiner, PF, PF/1, PF/2 and PF/3, and sanction orders exhibit PE. Karnail Singh, Finger Prints Expert, Shamsher Singh and Ram Singh, Constables, were given up, as unnecessary, by the Public Prosecutor, for the State. Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 14. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, tendered in defence evidence DE, DF and DG, the judgments, vide which, they were acquitted for the offences, under the Arms Act, relating to the arms, allegedly recovered from them, in the instant case. Thereafter, they closed their defence evidence. 15. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 16. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants. 17. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 18. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove, that the accused were the perpetrators of crime, as their identity, could not be established, beyond a reasonable doubt, as the alleged occurrence, took place, in the Month of November, at about 7.15 p.m., as per the statement of Sukhdev Singh, when there was complete darkness and no source of light at the spot. He further submitted that the accused, therefore, did not stand connected with the instant crime, but the trial Court, was wrong, in recording their conviction and awarding sentence to them. It was further submitted by him that even the presence of Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, the two alleged eye-witnesses, at the time of the alleged occurrence, did not stand proved. He further submitted that a crude attempt was made, by the Police, to introduce them, as eye-witnesses of the crime. It was further submitted by him that even the presence of Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, the two alleged eye-witnesses, at the time of the alleged occurrence, did not stand proved. He further submitted that a crude attempt was made, by the Police, to introduce them, as eye-witnesses of the crime. He further submitted that they could not identify the accused, as alleged perpetrators of crime, nor did mention their names nor complete description in the First Information Report. He further submitted that the accused were never produced, in the Court, in muffled faces. Even the accused, after the recording of the First Information Report, when they were, in the Police Station, were shown to the witnesses, and, as such, they, in the first instance, refused to. participate, in the identification parade, but later on, when they again made an application for participation, in the identification parade, the same was declined by the concerned Court. He further submitted that even the vehicles were not shown, to the eye-witnesses, during the course of their statements, in the Court. He further submitted that even the motive, set up by the prosecution, was no proved. It was further submitted by him, that even the vehicles i.e. jeep and the truck, were not shown to the witnesses, nor got identified from them, during the course of evidence of the prosecution. He further submitted that both these witnesses were tutored to give false statements, in the Court. He further submitted that the accused were acquitted, in separate cases, registered against them, for allegedly having been found in possession of arms, without any licence, allegedly used, in the instant case, vide judgments DE, DF and DG, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. He further submitted that, thus, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are unsustainable, in the eyes of law, and liable to be set aside. 19. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the FIR was lodged, in this case, promptly and, as such, it could not be said that Sukdev Singh and Shyam Singh, eye-witnesses, were not present, at the spot, at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that the jeep, truck and the weapons of offences, were also recovered from the accused. He further submitted that the jeep, truck and the weapons of offences, were also recovered from the accused. He further submitted that the accused, when produced, in the Court of the concerned Magistrate, on 30.11.1991, refused to participate, in the identification parade. He further submitted that, in case, they had any doubt, with regard to their identity, as the perpetrators of crime, they could participate, in the identification parade. He further submitted that refusal, on the part of the accused to participate in the identification parade, showed that they were the actual perpetrators of crime. He further submitted that the medical evidence corroborated the statements of Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh. It was further submitted by him that Bhagwan Singh, was the owner of the jeep, in question, and Mohinder Singh, was the owner of the truck, in question, at whose instance, the accused committed the murder of Major Singh and Gurjant Singh. He further submitted that since both the prosecution witnesses namely Sukhdev Singh and Major Singh, are uneducated, and if made some improvements, in their depositions, the same could be ignored. He further submitted that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, and deserve to be upheld. 20. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which, the appeal, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Coming to the identity of the appellants, as the alleged perpetrators of crime, it may be stated here, that in the statement exhibit PQ of Sukhdev Singh, which formed the basis of the First Information Report, neither the names of the accused, nor their parentage, nor their villages, nor their complete description, were given. The alleged occurrence took place, on 22.11.1991, at about 7.15 p.m. as stated by Sukhdev Singh (PW6). Neither the faces of the accused, when there was no source of light, nor the number of the truck, nor the number of the jeep, were visible to Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh. No doubt, Sukhdev Singh, PW6, during the course of his examination-in-chief, identified the accused, by touching them, in the trial Court. Neither the faces of the accused, when there was no source of light, nor the number of the truck, nor the number of the jeep, were visible to Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh. No doubt, Sukhdev Singh, PW6, during the course of his examination-in-chief, identified the accused, by touching them, in the trial Court. However, during the course of his cross-examination, it was stated by him, that he was not familiar with the accused, prior to the date of occurrence. He further stated that he had seen the accused, in the Police Station, after they had been arrested. He further stated that he was called by the Police, after three days of the registration of the First Information Report, for identification of the accused, who were in Police lock-up, at that time. He further stated that he had not seen the truck and the jeep subsequent to the day of the impugned occurrence. He also stated that he had not given the heights, girth and ages of the assailants, in the First Information Report. Sukhdev Singh, is a resident of village Dhindsa, District Sangrur (Punjab) and the alleged occurrence took place, in the area of Tohana (Haryana). Shyam Singh, PW7, made a vague statement, in his examination-in-chief, to the effect, that the accused present, in the trial Court, were the occupants of the truck, and the jeep, at the time of the occurrence. However, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that he was familiar with the accused, prior to the date of alleged occurrence, as they were of adjacent village. He stated that he gave the names of their village, in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but when he was confronted with his statement exhibit DB, this fact was not found recorded therein. He further stated that, he did not give their names to the Police, as he was not familiar with the same prior to that. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that he was familiar with their faces, but not their parentage. He further stated that, he did not give their names to the Police, as he was not familiar with the same prior to that. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that he was familiar with their faces, but not their parentage. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that he had given the girth of the accused, to the Police, in his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by telling that, two of them were slim, one was of medium height and two were of heavy weight, but when, he was confronted with DB, his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this fact was not found recorded therein. He could not explain, as to how, the aforesaid improvements were made by him. It was also stated by him, during the course of his cross-examination, that he saw the accused, in the Police lock-up, after their arrest. From the careful reading of the statements of both these witnesses, it becomes abundantly clear, that none of them, was earlier known to the assailants, who allegedly committed the crime. They even could not recollect the description of the assailants, who committed the murder of Major Singh and Gurjant Singh. On 22.11.1991, as submitted by Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, Counsel for the appellants, the sun had set at 5.23 p.m. Since, as per the statement of Sukhdev Singh, PW6, the occurrence took place at 7.15 p.m., it means that there was complete darkness and without any source of light and without any previous familiarity of the accused with these witnesses, they could not possibly identify them. No other evidence wa produced, in the case to prove the identification of the accused, as the perpetrators of the alleged crime. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish their identity, beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt, as the perpetrators of crime, they are not connected with the case. The identification of the accused by Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, prosecution witnesses, in the Court, for the first time, after a number of years, was hardly of any value. Reference, in this regard, may be made to Kanan V/s. State of Kerala, 1979 SCC (Crl) 621 : (1979 Cri LJ 919). The identification of the accused by Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, prosecution witnesses, in the Court, for the first time, after a number of years, was hardly of any value. Reference, in this regard, may be made to Kanan V/s. State of Kerala, 1979 SCC (Crl) 621 : (1979 Cri LJ 919). No doubt, it is evident, from the application, lying at page 161, which is unexhibited, of the Committing Court record, that when the accused, for the first time on 30.11.1991, after their arrest, in this case, were produced for judicial remand, a request was also made therein, that they be asked to participate, in the identification parade. However, there is no mention, in this application, that the accused were being produced in muffled faces, or they had been directed to muffle their faces. It means that they were produced with naked faces. No order was also passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, on this application of 30.11.1991, that the accused were produced, before him, in muffled faces and not with naked faces. However, it is evident from the order dated 30.11.1991, that the accused made separate statements, refusing to join the identification parade, on the ground, that they had already been shown to the witnesses concerned. As stated above, the accused were shown to the witnesses, after their arrest, when they were in Police lock-up. Since they had already been shown to the witnesses, after their arrest, when they were in Police lock-up, their refusal to participate in the identification parade, was completely justified. In similar circumstances, in Prahlad Singh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 515 : (1997 Cri LJ 4078), when a child witness, in a case, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, stated in the Court, that the accused had been shown to her, outside the Court, and she was tutored by the Police, the identification of the accused, for the first time, in the Court, in the substantive evidence of that witness was held to be unacceptable by the Apex Court. Later on, an application was filed, by the accused, on 23.12.1991, which is at page 153 of the Committing Court record, that at the time, they made statements that they did not want to participate in the identification parade, they were pressurized by the Police authorities, as they had threatened to beat them. Later on, an application was filed, by the accused, on 23.12.1991, which is at page 153 of the Committing Court record, that at the time, they made statements that they did not want to participate in the identification parade, they were pressurized by the Police authorities, as they had threatened to beat them. Accordingly, it was stated in this application, that they be allowed to participate in identification parade before the proper authorities. This application was opposed by the prosecution, by filing reply DE. Ultimately, this application of the accused, was dismissed by the Court of the Committing Magistrate. In these circumstances, it was imperative, on the part of the Investigating Officer, to hold identification parade during the course of investigation, in a fair and impartial manner, by asking the accused to muffle their faces, before their production in the Court for the first time, so as to pin-point their identity, as the perpetrators of crime. However, no such genuine and sincere effort was made by the Investigating. Officer. It was held in Budhsen and another V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1321 : (1970 CriLJ 1149), that facts which establish the identity of an accused person, are relevant under Section 9. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in the Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person, at the trial, for the first time, is from its very nature, inherently of a weak character. The evidence, in order to carry conviction, should ordinarily clarify, as to how and under what circumstances, the witness came to pick out the particular accused person, and the details of the part, which the accused played, in the crime, in question, with reasonable particularity. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses, in the Court, as to the identity of the accused, who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the investigation stage. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the investigation stage. They are generally held, during the course of investigation, with the primary object of enabling the witnesses, to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses, and also to furnish evidence, to corroborate their testimony in the Court. Identification proceedings, in their legal effect, amount simply to this : that certain persons are brought to jail, or some other place, and they make statements, either express or implied, that certain individuals whom they point out are persons, whom they recognize, as having been concerned in the crime. The same do not constitute substantive evidence. These parades are essentially governed by Section 162, Cr. P. C. The principle of law, laid down, with regard to test identification parade in Ramanathan V/s. The State of T. N., AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1204 : (1978 Cri LJ 1137) was as under : "Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time, for the object of placing a suspect in a line up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident but they claim that although they did not know him earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient details and would be able to identify him if and when they happened to see him.The holding of a test identification in such cases is as much in the interest of the investigating agency or the prosecution as in the interest of the suspect or the accused. For while it enables the investigating officer to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claim to have seen the perpetrator of the crime and their capacity to identify him and thereby fill the gap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit, it saves the suspect or the accused form the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the self same witnesses during the course of the trial. The line up of the suspect in a test identification parade is therefore a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of witnesses in such cases and has worked well in actual practice." 21. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. On reappraisal of the evidence of Sukhdev Singh (PW6), and Shyam Singh (PW7), respectively, it has been found, that the same is not creditworthy, with regard to the identification of the accused. The trial Court, thus, was wrong in relying upon their evidence, in coming to the conclusion, that the identity of the accused, must have been etched, in the minds of these witnesses, when they witnessed the gruesome murder of Major Singh and Gurjant Singh. The finding of the trial Court, to the effect, that the identity of the accused was proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, as the perpetrators of crime, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, is reversed. The accused did not stand connected with the present case in any manner. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being correct, is accepted. 22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, both Sukhdev Singh, PW6, and Shyam Singh, PW7, were, in fact, present, at the time of the alleged occurrence, or they were introduced later on. Their presence, at the time of the alleged occurrence, does not stand proved, as would be discussed hereinafter. Both the witnesses are not residents of Tohana. They are residents of Sangrur, which is at a sufficient distance from Tohana, where the alleged occurrence took place. Sukhdev Singh, did not state, even a single word in his statement, as to for what purpose, he had come to Tohana on that day. Both the witnesses are not residents of Tohana. They are residents of Sangrur, which is at a sufficient distance from Tohana, where the alleged occurrence took place. Sukhdev Singh, did not state, even a single word in his statement, as to for what purpose, he had come to Tohana on that day. It was stated by Sukhdev Singh, that there was one tea shop, near the factory, which was running at that time. He further stated that the tea shop vendor ran away, on seeing the occurrence. He also stated that information was given by him to another truck driver, whose name, he did not know, who informed in the village, regarding the occurrence. Neither the owner of the tea shop, nor that truck driver was examined by the prosecution. As stated above, he did not mention the description of the accused in PQ, the First Information Report or in his statement. Shyam Singh, PW7, did no state, in his examination-in-chief, as to why, he and Sukhdev Singh, allegedly came to Tohana. However, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that they had come to Tohana, at about 10.00/11.00 a.m. as on that day, Punjab bandh was being observed. He further stated that they had come to Tohana, to find out, how much would be paid to them, in lieu of the harrows cultivators (Tawian). He further stated that they visited 4-5 dealers for the purpose, but could not give their names. He further stated that they purchased new harrows (Tawian) from Meerpur, Punjab, a year before the occurrence. He further stated that, out of fear, he could not see, as to who, exactly out of the two, had fired the shot. No dealer, or the person, whom they had contacted, for the sale of their harrow cultivators (Tawian) was examined, to prove the purpose of their alleged visit to Tohana. Had both of them been residents of Tohana, it would have been said, that they could be the natural witnesses, who saw the occurrence. Since, they did not belong to Tohana, it being a distant place, and could not prove the purpose of their alleged visit, to the said Town, on that day, it can be said, that their presence, at the time of the alleged occurrence, wasmost unnatural and improbable. Since, they did not belong to Tohana, it being a distant place, and could not prove the purpose of their alleged visit, to the said Town, on that day, it can be said, that their presence, at the time of the alleged occurrence, wasmost unnatural and improbable. It appears that Gurjant Singh and Major Singh, were killed, by some unknown persons, and with a view to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case, both Sukhdev Singh and Shyam Singh, nearly related to him (Major Singh) were introduced later on. Since the presence of these witnesses, at the time of the alleged occurrence, was not proved, their evidence can be said to be completely unreliable. The trial Court was wrong, in placing reliance, on their evidence, to come to the conclusion, that the case of the prosecution stood fully proved. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, being not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, is reversed. 23. In the First Information Report, the motive for the commission of crime, was set up to the effect, that Major Singh brother of Sukhdev Singh, had illicit relations with Guddi daughter of Bhagwan Singh, whose first husband had already died, and he was residing with her. However, Sukhdev Singh (PW6), in his statement, deposed that he did not state before the Police, that his deceased brother had illicit relations with Guddi daughter of Bhagwan Singh. No doubt, there can be an occurrence, without a motive. However, when a specific motive is set up by the prosecution, and if, the same is not proved, then a doubt is cast on its case. 24. On 29.11.1991, Jeep No. HNH 5698 from Leela Singh and truck No. HRF 5297 from Darshan Singh were allegedly recovered during the course of holding of picket, by the Police. These were not shown to the witnesses, during their evidence, to establish that the same were used in the commission of crime. The Forensic Science Laboratory vide report PF/3, could not give any opinion regarding the moulds of the tyre marks, which were lifted from the spot, so as to connect these vehicles with the crime. These were not shown to the witnesses, during their evidence, to establish that the same were used in the commission of crime. The Forensic Science Laboratory vide report PF/3, could not give any opinion regarding the moulds of the tyre marks, which were lifted from the spot, so as to connect these vehicles with the crime. No official from the office of the District Transport Officer was examined, to prove that Bhagwan Singh was the owner of the jeep and Mohinder Singh was the owner of the truck, to establish their link with the crime. In this view of the matter, the alleged recovery of the aforesaid vehicles, did not advance the case of the prosecution. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent, thus, being without merit, stands rejected. 25. One pistol and cartridges, were allegedly recovered from Leela Singh, and taken into possession, vide memo PJ.A 12 bore gun, the butt whereof, had already been cut, was recovered from Sewa Singh, and taken into possession, vide memo PL. One 12 bore country-made pistol was recovered from Gurpiara Singh, and taken into possession, vide memo PM on 29.11.1991. It may stated here, that in respect of these fire arms, allegedly recovered, from the accused, separate First Information Reports, were registered. They were tried by the concerned Court, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, and acquitted, vide judgments exhibits DE, DF and DG, respectively, dated 03.05.1995. Since they have already been acquitted, for the offences, referred to above, now these weapons, cannot be said to be connected, with the present occurrence. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the respondent, that the ocular version was corroborated by the recovery of weapons of offences. 26. The other evidence of the formal witnesses, as also the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory, in the absence of proof of the case of the prosecution, and the identity of the accused, as the perpetrators of crime, could be said to be hardly of any consequence, to connect them with the present occurrence. Had the identity of the accused been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses, been held to be reliable, these pieces of circumstantial evidence, would have furnished some corroboration. Had the identity of the accused been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses, been held to be reliable, these pieces of circumstantial evidence, would have furnished some corroboration. No help, therefore, can be drawn, from the circumstantial evidence, referred to above, by the prosecution. 27. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 28. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, and the same are liable to be set aside. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge, framed against them. If the appellants are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If, they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty, at once, if not fequired, in any other case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment immediately.