JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-07-2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2000, and Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2000, whereby accused/appellant Chandan Singh has been convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959. The convict has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 I.P.C. The accused/appellant Chandan Singh has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the Lower Court Record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that P.W.1 Mahesh Kumar Ahuja, complainant, R/o Subhash Nagar, Haldwani, had gone to Nainital on 07-10-1999, leaving his wife and children in his home. He returned at about 3.45 P.M. and when he reached near his house, he heard shrieks of his wife inside the house and knocked the door, but nobody opened it. Meanwhile, hearing the cries from the house of the complainant, his neighbour P.W.2-Surendra Pal Singh alias Lattu also reached there. When the two witnesses failed to get opened the door, they went behind the house and broke it open. They entered in the house, and saw that accused/appellant Chandan Singh, who was servant of the complainant, giving blows with a knife on the person of Smt. Pummi (deceased), wife of the complainant. The accused/appellant Chandan Singh opened the door other side and ran away. P.W.1-Mahesh Kumar Ahuja, complainant, lodged the First Information Report on the very day i.e. 07-10-1999, at about 4.30 P.M., with Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital, relating to offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant Chandan Singh. Crime No. 1656 of 1999 was registered against the accused/appellant and investigation was taken up by P.W.7-Incharge Inspector Raja Ram Nagar. The Police went to the spot and took the dead body in their possession and prepared Inquest Report (Ext.A-11) at 5.00 P.M. (on 07-10-1999). The Police also prepared other necessary papers like-Police Form No. 13 (Ext.A-12), Sketch of the Dead Body (Ext.A-13), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext.A-14), Sample Seal (Ext.A-15). The Police went to the spot and took the dead body in their possession and prepared Inquest Report (Ext.A-11) at 5.00 P.M. (on 07-10-1999). The Police also prepared other necessary papers like-Police Form No. 13 (Ext.A-12), Sketch of the Dead Body (Ext.A-13), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext.A-14), Sample Seal (Ext.A-15). The dead body of Smt. Pummi was sent for postmortem examination, P.W.5-Dr. P.C. Kapri, conducted postmortem examination on the very day i.e. 07-10-1999, at 8.05 P.M. He recorded as many as fifteen ante mortem injuries. Most of these were incised wounds. The Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. He prepared Autopsy Report (Ext.A-10). On 08-10-1999, the Police could arrest accused/appellant Chandan Singh in Lalkuan. The Investigating Officer, during investigation, on pointing out of the accused/appellant could recover the knife (Ext.3) allegedly used in the crime and prepared recovery memo (Ext.A-2). After completion of investigation, Police submitted Chage Sheet (Ext.A-9) against accused Chandan Singh for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Also, as the accused was found in possession of the knife with a blade having prohibited length a separate Crime No. 1657 of 1999 was registered against him in respect of offence punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959. Said crime was investigated by Sub Inspector Kiran Pal Singh, who also submitted Charge Sheet (Ext.A-6) against the accused/appellant Chandan Singh for his trial in respect of said offence. 4. On receiving the two Charge Sheets against the accused / appellant Chandan Singh, the Magistrate committed both the cases to the court of Sessions of trial, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 09-05-2000, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. He framed a separate charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959. The accused Chandan Singh pleaded not guilty in both the cases and claimed to be tried. Evidence of both the cases was recorded in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2000. The accused Chandan Singh pleaded not guilty in both the cases and claimed to be tried. Evidence of both the cases was recorded in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2000. The prosecution got examined P.W.1-Mahesh Kumar Ahuja, complainant and alleged eye-witness; P.W.2- Surendra Pal Singh, another eye witness; P.W.3- Rajendra Kumar, in whose presence the knife and blood stained clothes of the accused are said to have been recovered; P.W.4- Sub Inspector Kiran Pal Singh, who investigated the crime related to offence punishable under Section 4/25 Armas Act; P.W.5- Dr. P.C. Kapri, who conducted post mortem examination; P.W.6- Sub Inspector Mohd. Hanif, in whose presence Inquest Report was prepared and P.W.7- In-charge Inspector Raja Ram Nagar, who investigated the crime relating to murder. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, trial court found the accused Chandan Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act. The accused Chandan Singh was further found guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. for causing voluntarily hurt of Simran, daughter of complainant, who is said to have been assaulted by accused. Accordingly, the accused was convicted on charges of offences punishable under Section 302, 323 I.P.C. ad 4/25 Arms Act, 1959. After hearing on sentence, the accused Chandan Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 323 I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 18-07-2000, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal through Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly, where he appears to have been undergoing the sentence awarded against him. 5. Before further discusses, we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries found on the person of Smt. Pummi (deceased), by P.W.5- Dr. P.C. Kapri, who prepared Autopsy Report (Ext.A-10), on 07-10-1999, at 8.05 P.M. The ante mortem injuries mentioned in said report are being reproduced below: (i) Incised wound on chin just below lip directing towards left. 1½ x .5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. P.C. Kapri, who prepared Autopsy Report (Ext.A-10), on 07-10-1999, at 8.05 P.M. The ante mortem injuries mentioned in said report are being reproduced below: (i) Incised wound on chin just below lip directing towards left. 1½ x .5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (ii) Incised wound 4.5cm x .5cm x nasal septa deep on nasal prominence with fresh blood oozing. (iii) Incised wound 2.5 x bone deep on right side face. 2cm below right below eyelid. (iv) Incised wound (3) 1cm apart each other on right side of face, 1cm lateral to. Lateral angel of right eye with fresh blood oozing. (v) Incised wound (3) 1cm apart from each other, 4cm lateral to left angle of mouth, 1.5cm x 1cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (vi) One incised wound on upper lip, 1cm to left angel of mouth, 1.5cm x 0.5cm x 1cm deep with fresh blood oozing. (vii) One incised wound on left side of chin, 1cm x 1/4cm x bone deep with blood present. (viii) One incised wound on side of neck, 2cm x 2.5cm x trachea deep, trachea, deep vessels are cut and severed. (ix) Three incised wounds on right side of neck, 1cm apart from each other, just below right ear pinna. Each 4cm x 1.5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (x) Incised wound on right side of neck, 1cm below injury No. 4, 4cm x 0.5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (xi) Incised wound 1.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep. 2cm below injury No.10 with fresh blood oozing. (xii) Incised wound on dorsum of left hand 2cm x 0.5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (xiii) Incised wound on bone of left thumb on palmer side, 2cm x 0.5cm x bone deep with fresh blood oozing. (xiv) Incised wound on right thumb on dorsum, 0.5cm x 0.5cm x bone deep. (xv) Multiple punctuate wounds (Total 8) on left side of chest and abdomen below Axilla ranging in an area 19 x 10cm. On internal examination, the Medical Officer found that a sixteen weeks old foetus was also inside the uterus. The Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The statement of P.W.5- Dr. On internal examination, the Medical Officer found that a sixteen weeks old foetus was also inside the uterus. The Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The statement of P.W.5- Dr. P.C. Kapri, read with aforesaid injuries, clearly establish that Smt. Pummi had died a homicidal death and she was brutally murdered. The question before this Court is whether the accused/appellant Chandan Singh committed murder of Smt. Pummi, voluntarily caused hurt to Simran, and was he in possession of knife (Ext.3) with a blade of prohibited length. 6. P.W.1 – Mahesh Kumar Ahuja, complainant, is husband of the deceased, who has stated that on 07-10-1999, he had gone to Nainital, leaving his family in his house, situated in Subhash Nagar, Haldwani. According to this witness, he came back at 3.45 P.M. He heard that T.V. was on with high volume but still shrieks were heard from inside the house. On this, he knocked the doors, but nobody opened it, then he along with his neighbour Surendra Pal Singh (P.W.2) went behind the house and broke open the back door. On entering into the house, the witness has stated that he saw his servant Chandan Singh giving blows with knife on the person of his wife Smt. Pummi. The witness has further stated that on the very day, he lodged the First Information Report (Ext.A-1) with Police Station Haldwani. 7. The statement of the above witness gets corroboration from P.W.2- Surendra Pal Singh, neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that he had come for lunch from his shop, when he heard cries from the house of the deceased and went there. The witness has further stated that back door of the house of the deceased was broken and he saw accused Chandan Singh armed with knife giving blows to the deceased. The two witnesses have stated that the accused Chandan Singh opened the bolt of another door and ran away through it and could not be caught. 8. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of appellant, argued that the case appears to be of blind murder and only on suspicion the accused/appellant has been apprehended and prosecuted. The two witnesses have stated that the accused Chandan Singh opened the bolt of another door and ran away through it and could not be caught. 8. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of appellant, argued that the case appears to be of blind murder and only on suspicion the accused/appellant has been apprehended and prosecuted. In this connection he contended that it is very unnatural on the part of an accused, who is said to be a servant of the deceased, that he would kill her at the time when the husband of the deceased (P.W.1- Mahesh Kumar Ahuja) is coming back from out station. If the accused Chandan Singh had any plan to kill the deceased he could have easily done it soon after P.W.1- Mahesh Kumar Ahuja left the house in the morning for Nainital. It is also pointed out that the testimony of another alleged eyewitness P.W.2- Surendra Pal Singh is also not reliable for it is hard to believe that he was present in his house at the time of the incident as he runs a shop away from the place of incident. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that this witness is in fact relation of complainant Mahesh Kumar Ahuja. On the basis of these facts, an argument is raised that had the incident taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution, the other natural neighbouring witnesses could have come forward to depose the fact that the shrieks were heard from inside and accused ran away with a knife. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Chandan Singh has denied that he was servant of the complainant on the day of incident. P.W.1- Mahesh Ahuja has told that accused was his servant earlier also about one and half year before the incident. 9. From the above facts, a reasonable doubt appears in the truthfulness of the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses P.W.1- Mahesh Kumar Ahuja and P.W.2- Surendra Pal Singh. Had the two seen accused Chandan Singh, a servant in the house, committing murder of Smt. Pummi, it should not have been difficult for them to apprehend him inside the house, when it was closed from all sides. Had the two seen accused Chandan Singh, a servant in the house, committing murder of Smt. Pummi, it should not have been difficult for them to apprehend him inside the house, when it was closed from all sides. Apart from this, it is very unnatural conduct on the part of P.W.1 – Mahesh Kumar Ahuja that he did not take his wife Smt. Pummi, lying in an injured condition, to the hospital soon after the incident. Though in a case of direct evidence motive is not required to be proved by the prosecution for commission of crime by the accused but copy of General Diary, dated 08-10-1999, which appears to have been written at Police Station Lalkuan at Serial No. 30 shows that the Police has come up with a story that accused Chandan Singh after his arrest confessed guilt to it and disclosed the motive that Smt. Pummi used to harass him, and he had also a greed for money, and further that a quarrel took place for non-payment of money. It is very unnatural on the part of an accused to disclose three different inconsistent motives at the same time for commission of murder. Not only this, it is also unnatural that the accused would run away in day light in a populated area with a knife in his hand. 10. As far as offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., there is no medical evidence on record to show that accused Chandan Singh voluntarily caused hurt to Simran. Also, there is no public witness of recovery of knife (Ext.3) regarding which charge of offence punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act is framed. 11. For the reasons as discussed above and on examination of the evidence on record, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the charge of offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. or 323 I.P.C. or one punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959, are proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Chandan Singh. He appears to be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in its impugned judgment and order dated 18-07-2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2000, and Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2000, are hereby set aside. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in its impugned judgment and order dated 18-07-2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2000, and Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2000, are hereby set aside. He is in jail. If he is not wanted in connection with any other crime, he shall be set at liberty. Lower Court Record be sent back to the trial court. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned.