Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 332 (JK)

Arjun Pradhan v. State Of J. &K.

2009-07-09

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, NIRMAL SINGH

body2009
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Registration of the case as crime No.99/2000 P/S Bakshi Nagar Jammu culminated in presenting charge sheet(challan) against the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. 2. Trial of the case culminated in conviction of the accused for commission of aforesaid offences, so stands sentenced to undergo (a) imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000 for commission of offence u/s 302 RPC, (b) simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2000 for commission of offence u/s 307 RPC, (c) simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000 for offence u/s 452 RPC, and (d) imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000 for offence u/s 4/25 Arms Act, in default of payment of fine has to undergo further imprisonment of six months. For confirmation of life imprisonment awarded case has been submitted to this Court in terms of Section 374 Cr.P.C. Same has been numbered as confirmation No.01/2007. 3. Accused No.2 being an absconder has been proceeded in terms of Section 512 Cr.P.C. 4. The appellant-accused being aggrieved of the conviction has preferred the instant appeal. 5. To be precise, the case set-up against the accused is that the accused along with another accused (absconder) being electricians were engaged by the deceased Chander Vijay Awaz for electric fittings. Non satisfactory work was pointed out by the deceased which resulted in altercation on one day whereas on the next day both the accused armed with `Tokas are alleged to have intruded into the bedroom of the deceased located in top floor of the house situated at Sarwal, both attacked the deceased and his wife Subash Kumari when they were taking morning tea at about 7.40 AM on 9.9.2000. Both husband and wife sustained injuries. On raising alarm both the accused fled from the scene of occurrence. Vijay Awaz succumbed to his injuries whereas wife Subash Kumari remained admitted in the hospital for 15 days. 6. In support of the case during trial as many as 14 prosecution witnesses were produced which include Subash Kumari, Kanta Devi, Rekha Rani, Sumitra Devi and Parveen Kumar, wife, mother, sister, brothers wife and brother of the deceased respectively. Vijay Awaz succumbed to his injuries whereas wife Subash Kumari remained admitted in the hospital for 15 days. 6. In support of the case during trial as many as 14 prosecution witnesses were produced which include Subash Kumari, Kanta Devi, Rekha Rani, Sumitra Devi and Parveen Kumar, wife, mother, sister, brothers wife and brother of the deceased respectively. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused-appellant has been examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C wherein accused has denied complicity in the crime and has added that police failed to nab the actual assailants and he has been implicated falsely. 7. After examining the accused in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C, learned trial court was required to hear the prosecution and the accused, in case of no evidence, acquittal was to be recorded otherwise the learned trial court had to call upon the accused to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence which he may have in support thereof. It appears that learned trial court has lost sight of adhering to Section 273 and 274 Cr.P.C as while examining the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C he has been directly asked if he wants to produce any evidence in defence. Non compliance in the present case is an irregularity which has not caused prejudice to the accused as the object of adherence to the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C is to find out if there is no evidence so that without asking for defence evidence case can be decided. However, the accused has been given sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence in defence which he has failed. Same is supported by the record on the file i.e. prosecution evidence has been closed on 23.5.2006 and accused has been examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C on 7.6.2006. From 29.6.2006 till 15.9.2006 opportunities have been granted for producing the defence evidence. Failure in production thereof has resulted in closure of defence evidence. 8. The first contention projected by the appearing counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly. Only such portion of evidence has been taken note of which favours the prosecution whereas the portion which favoured the accused has been ignored. Further added that witnesses to the occurrence were all relative witnesses so were interested witnesses. Their partisanship has not been taken note of by the trial court. 9. Only such portion of evidence has been taken note of which favours the prosecution whereas the portion which favoured the accused has been ignored. Further added that witnesses to the occurrence were all relative witnesses so were interested witnesses. Their partisanship has not been taken note of by the trial court. 9. Learned trial court has recorded brief resume of the evidence so as to facilitate the appreciation of facts and evidence. Brief resume is permissible but in the process any portion of the evidence which may be favourable to either side shall not be ignored. 10. In connection with question of appreciation of evidence, it shall be quite apt to quote what has been held in judgment Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar & anr. v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1981 SC 1237. "The Prosecution evidence no doubt suffers from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspect thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage if the incongruities are obtaining in the evidence. In the latter case, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases." 11. Again it. shall be quite apt to refer to judgment Boya Ganganna v. State of AP reported in AIR 1976 SC 1541 wherein it has been held as under: "Minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trained and educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women. It must also be remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very much depend upon his power of observation that it is possible that some aspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while they may not be witnessed by another though both are present at the scene of offence. It would not, therefore, be right to reject testimony of such witness merely on the basis of minor contradictions." 12. It would not, therefore, be right to reject testimony of such witness merely on the basis of minor contradictions." 12. Learned trial court has taken note of the relationship of the witnesses and on appreciation of evidence has summed up the basic facts and evidence as under:- "a) Accused had been engaged by the deceased for electric fitting in his house. Their work was not satisfactory and so there was a quarrel in between the accused and the deceased. b) On the day of occurrence accused barged into the bedroom when the deceased and his wife were having tea. c) The accused attacked both of them with "Tokas" (sharp edged weapons). As a result of the assault deceased sustained 14 injuries and he succumbed to those injuries within hours and his wife Subash Kumari sustained five injuries which too were sufficient to cause death. d) The weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused-1, pursuant to his disclosure. e) The samples of blood found on various articles at the scene of occurrence, on the cloths of the deceased, and sample of blood collected at the time of his postmortem and the blood found on shirt of the accused were of same blood ground "O"." 13. Thereafter trial court has concluded that the said facts unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused No.l. It is settled rule that when the relations are the witnesses per se their credibility will not get affected neither they can be characterized as interested witnesses. Every case has its own features and facts and on proper appreciation thereof credibility of the testimony will come to the fore. When the witnesses are relative witnesses, the rule is that their testimony has to be scanned with extra care and circumspection. In the judgment Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3739 the Apex Court has held as under: "Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive." 14. In the light of the aforesaid principles as have been laid down, perused the prosecution evidence, what emerges there from is that the identity of the assailants (accused) has remained in the region of `suspicion. For appreciating the same, it shall be quite relevant to reproduce the deposition of the main witness Subash Kumari (wife of the deceased) because at the time of assault it is only the accused, deceased and the said witness who were present in the room: "PW Subash Kumari wife of the deceased (recorded on 8.10.2001) has stated that the accused present in the court is known to her. One year back accused had done the electric fitting in their house. Work was non satisfactory based on which accused had a quarrel with her husband. On next day at quarter to eight (7.45 am) in the morning she along with her husband were taking tea in the bedroom. The accused intruded into their bedroom and started beating them. Tokas were in the hands of the accused, her head and other parts of the body were injured. Before that her husband was beaten by the accused. His head, arms and legs were targeted. Thereafter she was also beaten on head (right side), on nose as well as shoulders. She raised a voice and the mohalla people came which include her daughter in law (Kanta Devi), sister Rekha, Rakesh Kumar and others. She along with her husband were taken to the hospital. After 10/12 days she was told about the death of her husband. She remained in the hospital for 15 days. Toka as is shown is the same with which she was injured and her husband was also injured. She regained consciousness in the hospital after 4/5 days. Police recorded her statement which is available on the file. Its contents are correct so is exhibited as EXPW-SK. She remained in the hospital for 15 days. Toka as is shown is the same with which she was injured and her husband was also injured. She regained consciousness in the hospital after 4/5 days. Police recorded her statement which is available on the file. Its contents are correct so is exhibited as EXPW-SK. On cross examination by the defence counsel has stated that her house is situated at Sarwal. Adjacent thereto is the house of Rakesh Kumar and the house of OP Gangal. These persons at that time had come on spot. Name of the accused was not known to her. However, one was named as Ramu and another was named as Arjun. They used to come to their house for electric fittings. Police personnel and her relatives who had come to the hospital said that these are the names of the accused. After 10/15 days in the hospital she came to know about the names of the accused. Police did not take her to police station for identification of the accused. However, the police had brought the accused to the hospital and asked her as to whether these are the boys. In reply she said that these are the boys. At that time her eyes were shut and was not conscious. After 2/3 days of the occurrence police took her thumb impression on the statement EXPW-SK. However, she regained her consciousness after 15/16 days. She does not know who recorded her statement EXPW-SK, however, police had come to the hospital and her thumb impression was taken. She does not know as to what was written in the statement on which her thumb impression was taken. The `Toka shown to her in the Court was not shown to her by the police. She has seen the `Toka for the first time in the court. Except statement EXPW-SK no other statement was recorded by the police. She raised voice from the window of her house and accused fled away. When people reached on spot, the assailants (accused) had fled away. When police took her thumb impression in the hospital, they had asked her and she had nodded her neck. Thereafter she had no meeting with the police". 15. It is also quite relevant to reproduce the statement EXPW-SK of said Subash Kumari recorded by police on 10.9.2000: "Has stated that she is resident of Sarwal Jammu. When police took her thumb impression in the hospital, they had asked her and she had nodded her neck. Thereafter she had no meeting with the police". 15. It is also quite relevant to reproduce the statement EXPW-SK of said Subash Kumari recorded by police on 10.9.2000: "Has stated that she is resident of Sarwal Jammu. On 9.9.2000 at half past seven in the morning (7.30 AM) she and her husband were sitting in the house. Two boys electrician Rama Chandra R/O Orissa and Arjun Pradhan R/O Orissa entered into the house on the basis of previous animosity and without any provocation attacked them with sharp edged weapon repeatedly, badly injured her and her husband. Rama Chandra and Arjun Pradhan last year in the month of November had done the electric fittings in their house. At that time they had some enmity with her husband. Based on said enmity, said persons on the previous day entered into their house and attacked them with sharp edged weapons. On her raising hue and cry both fled away from the place of occurrence. She and her husband in an injured condition were taken by the mohalla people to GMC, Jammu. Her husband succumbed to injuries in the hospital. Heard the statement as recorded. Same is correct." 16. The statement of this star witness vis-a-vis identity of the accused is doubtful. Firstly accordingly to her she was unconscious and regained her consciousness first said after 4/5 days, then said after 15 days, if it is so, how her statement has been recorded on 10.9.2000 i.e. on the second day of the occurrence, then how she has admitted that the said statement is correct, same is also exhibited as EXPW-SK. 17. In the said statement recorded on 10.9.2000 she has stated that last year in the month of November means November, 1999 accused had done the work of electric fitting and it is at that time accused and her husband had some enmity based on which on previous day i.e. 9.9.2000 accused entered their house and attacked them, when in the statement recorded in the court on 8.10.2001 she has stated that one year back means in the year 2000 accused had done the work of electric fitting which was non-satisfactory based on which there was quarrel between the accused and her husband. Then on next day accused entered their house and attacked them. 18. Then on next day accused entered their house and attacked them. 18. If the statement EXPW-SK to the said extent is taken to be correct, then it means that there was some enmity between her husband and accused in the year 1999. That means after 10 months accused had come to take revenge. On the other hand if her statement recorded in the court on 8.10.2001 is taken to be correct to the said extent, then there had been some quarrel regarding non-satisfactory electric fitting between her husband and the accused on 8.9.2000 based on which on the next day they attacked the deceased and the witness Subash Kumari. If it is taken correct, then there should be some evidence on the record to show that actually accused and the deceased had any type of quarrel on 3.9.2000. It is only Subash Kumari who says that some quarrel had ensued between her husband and the accused. Where that has happened and when that has happened, is not clear from the material on the record, even from her deposition. 19. In the statement EXPW-SK the said witness (Subash Kumari) has given clearly the names of the accused as electrician Rama Chandra R/O Orissa and Arjun Pradhan R/O Orissa when in her statement recorded in the court on 8.10.2001 she has admitted the contents of the statement EXPW-SK as correct but at the same time during cross examination has stated that she did not know the names of the accused, however, one was named as Ramu and another was named as Arjun. Then has added that the police and the relatives who had come to the hospital had stated that the same are the names of the accused. Again has added that after 10/15 days in the hospital she came to know about the names of the accused. 20. Either statement EXPW-SK recorded on 10.9.2000 is false or the statement recorded in the court, on 8.10.2001 to the aforesaid extent is wrong. Now which version of the witness is to be believed? 21. Again she has further deposed in the court that police had brought the accused to the hospital and she was asked if those are the boys (assailants), in reply she has said that those are the boys. Now which version of the witness is to be believed? 21. Again she has further deposed in the court that police had brought the accused to the hospital and she was asked if those are the boys (assailants), in reply she has said that those are the boys. Only one accused has been arrested, who two boys were produced before her in the hospital and which two boys were identified by her is again a doubtful situation. 22. Credibility of the said witness is further exposed as she has stated that when the boys (assailants) were brought in the hospital, her eyes were shut and was unconscious. 23. Again her credit-worthiness is not free from blame as she has admitted the contents of the statement EXPW-SK but position of the same statement is exposed by the fact that according to said witness, her thumb impression has been taken after 2/3 days of the occurrence when she herself has stated that she regained consciousness after 4/5 days in the hospital. 24. Again in her examination-in-chief she has stated that contents of statement EXPW-SK are correct but in her cross examination has again stated that she does not know as to what was written in EXPW-SK, however, police had come and taken her thumb impression. She does not know what police had written in the; statement. 25. Again in the statement EXPW-SK she has stated that the assailants were armed with sharp edged weapons. This statement has been recorded on 10.9.2000. On this date she could more clearly say that the accused were armed with `Tokas. In the statement recorded in the court she has stated that they were armed with `Tokas. 26. Statement of Subash Kumari to the extent that she was unconscious for 4/5 days in the hospital cannot be taken as correct because when her statement has been recorded on 10.9.2000, IO of the case had sought opinion of the medical officer and doctor has recorded on 10.9.2000 that she is fit to make the statement. The opinion of doctor EXPW-MS is clear to this effect. 27. The opinion of doctor EXPW-MS is clear to this effect. 27. In the statement recorded in the Court on 8.10.2001, Subash Kumari has stated that on one day deceased had some quarrel with the accused, on the next day they came and attacked them, whereas in the statement EXPW-SK said Subash Kumari has stated that the accused on the basis of previous animosity attacked them. What was the previous animosity has not been explained neither is forthcoming from the evidence. 28. The identity of the assailants becomes more doubtful and the element of implication of the accused with the object of showing that the murder case is solved appears to be probable as in the first report recorded by Police Post, Sarwal, it is recorded that at about 8.15 AM on 9.9.2000 from reliable source information is received to the effect that Rama Chandra and Arjun Pradhan electricians residents of Orissa at present Rehari Colony had entered into the house of Chander Vijay Awaz and had attacked them with sharp edged weapon as they (accused) on the basis of some past enmity with the object of killing them attacked and injured Vijay Awaz and his wife. 29. Investigating Officer of the case has been pointedly asked during cross examination as to who was the source informer to which witness has stated he does not know, however, has stated some information was received telephonically. He has further stated that as per the statement of Subash Kumari she was in know of the names of the accused but cannot say how Subash Kumari knew the names of the accused, when Subash Kumari in the statement recorded in the court has stated that she came to know about the names of the accused after 10/15 days as she was told about the names of the accused by the police personnel and the relatives, so again a serious contradiction. The said IO has not been able to explain who had given the names of the accused. 30. The position becomes more doubtful by another circumstance i.e. during the investigation one Mithu Pradhan had been arrested on 14.9.2000. It is said IO Mahesh Sharma who has stated that Mithu Pradhan was arrested on the basis of suspicion but was not found involved. 30. The position becomes more doubtful by another circumstance i.e. during the investigation one Mithu Pradhan had been arrested on 14.9.2000. It is said IO Mahesh Sharma who has stated that Mithu Pradhan was arrested on the basis of suspicion but was not found involved. If the names of the assailants were known to the police from the day one, what was the requirement of arresting Mithu Pradhan has not been explained. 31. If the names of the accused were known, why they were not arrested for about one month. As per the statement of IO the accused Arjun Pradhan Was arrested on 8.10.2000, that too at Lakhanpur. 32. Again position becomes doubtful. According to the IO, accused arrested at Lakhanpur was not identified by any one. Neither IO knew the accused nor any explanation has been tendered as to what steps had been taken for not arresting the accused for one month and then how and under what circumstances accused had been arrested at Lakhanpur. 33. Mahesh Sharma IO of the case has further added to the confusion viz-a-viz identity of the accused. He has stated that for catching hold of the accused (assailants) lot of people from the mohalla had run after them but could not catch the accused, has further clarified that he cannot say the names of the persons who had run after the accused. Witnesses of the occurrence were all giving the names of the accused as the accused were known to them. At that time accused were living in a rented accommodation at Rehari colony which is at a distance of 2/3 kilometers from the place of occurrence. The investigational skill of the IO is totally exposed. If there were witnesses who had run after the accused and they were knowing the names of the accused, at least IO should have recorded the name of any such witness. It is true that sometimes witnesses do not come forwarded but there was no impediment in recording name of the persons who were witnesses to the occurrence and were giving names of the accused. This position again makes the identity of the assailants doubtful. 34. Again IO in the statement has deposed that the identification of the accused was done in presence of Executive Magistrate but no such identification record is on the file when the requirement of identification was imperative. 35. This position again makes the identity of the assailants doubtful. 34. Again IO in the statement has deposed that the identification of the accused was done in presence of Executive Magistrate but no such identification record is on the file when the requirement of identification was imperative. 35. PW Kanta Rani (mother of the deceased) has deposed that on hearing the noise she rushed upstairs but was stopped by Rama Chandra (accused) but she did go upstairs. Another accused wielding Toka ran away. On asking deceased told her that Rama Chandra and Arjun Pradhan have beaten him. Her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C has been read over to her and she has admitted that said position is not recorded therein. Her deposition to this extent becomes doubtful as she has deposed the moment she reached the room of occurrence, the deceased and his wife due to injuries were unconscious and has added that the police must, have wrongly recorded the statement. Further has added that in her presence identification of the accused was not done, however, in presence of Subash Kumari identification of the accused was done in the hospital. Further has stated that she did not know the names of the accused. 36. Said witness has further stated that when she went upstairs, she was followed by her daughter Rekha Rani. PW Rekha Rani has stated that she followed her mother and found that accused were running away. Accused used to come to the house of the deceased for electric fitting so she knew them. She has further added that some 40 to 50 people had assembled on the roof top of the house; same position is not supported by any other witness. 37. PW Sumitra Devi wife of Parveen Kumar (brother of the deceased) has stated that at the time of occurrence in the ground floor of the house she was in the bath room. She heard the noise and saw the accused running away. She asked the deceased what has happened who in reply said that Rama Chandra has beaten him. Further has stated that her husband had left for his duty. Her statement was not recorded by the police. 38. Said witness Sumitra Devi is a government employee. She heard the noise and saw the accused running away. She asked the deceased what has happened who in reply said that Rama Chandra has beaten him. Further has stated that her husband had left for his duty. Her statement was not recorded by the police. 38. Said witness Sumitra Devi is a government employee. Her absence in the house at the time of occurrence is exposed by none else than by her husband Parveen Kumar as the said Parveen Kumar PW has stated that at the time of occurrence his wife Sumitra Devi had left for her duty. Now who, whether husband or wife, is to be believed. 39. The disclosure statement recorded on 8.10.2000 would show that accused-appellant in police custody has made a disclosure to the effect that a blood stained `DAH weapon of offence is concealed by him in the bushes adjacent to graveyard. This disclosure statement is witnessed by Constable Sanjay Kumar Bali and Constable Chain Singh. Based on this disclosure statement recovery has been effected and recovery memo EXPW- SK1 has been prepared according to which weapon of offence `DAH is 19 inch long out of which length of the blade is 14 inch, length of wooden handle is 5 inch and width of blade is 2 inch. 40. In the peculiar facts and circumstances position of both disclosure statement as well as recovery memo becomes doubtful for want of any independent witness when according to the statement of the IO place of recovery is located at a thoroughfare adjacent to which is a auto garage and two houses. He was asked why he had not associated any private witness, to which he has replied that he had asked so many people but no one came on spot as they were afraid of giving any statement. 41. This position is not acceptable because according to IO accused has been arrested on 8.10.2000 at Lakhanpur. On the same date he is shown to have made disclosure statement and on the same day date recovery has been affected. In addition on the same date a blood stained shirt is shown to have been recovered from the place of his rented house. Non-inclusion of any independent witness is not free from doubt. On the same date he is shown to have made disclosure statement and on the same day date recovery has been affected. In addition on the same date a blood stained shirt is shown to have been recovered from the place of his rented house. Non-inclusion of any independent witness is not free from doubt. The same doubtful position is compounded by another circumstance i.e. on the same date, as said above, from the rented residential premises of the accused blood stained shirt has been recovered which according to the IO was worn by the accused at the time of attack but at the same time IO has shown a different face by stating that he does not know in whose house accused was residing. It is not clarified by the IO as to why he has not cited at least the house owner as a witness or has not mentioned the name of the house owner. It has not come in evidence anywhere that the particular shirt was worn by the accused at the time of the attack. Wherefrom that shirt has come is also not known. Position of its having become blood stained at the time of attack or same being of the accused is not forthcoming. Interesting to note is that regarding the said blood stained shirt, Constable Sanjay Kumar and Constable Chain Singh are the witnesses. In the seizure memo EXPW-SK2 it is shown that from a room of a residential house the shirt worn by the accused at the time of occurrence was recovered. How it is recorded that the said shirt was worn by the accused, no witness has said as to which type of clothes were worn by the assailant, so the position of recovery of this shirt is also doubtful. 42. Learned trial court while appreciating the evidence has concluded that the blood samples taken, on analyses were found to be blood group "O" and was human blood on both weapon of offence and blood stained shirt, therefore, it is a strong circumstances to connect the accused with the commission of offence, but doubtful position of the matter has not been taken note of. None of the witnesses has stated that the recovered shirt was worn by the assailant (accused). None of the witnesses has stated that the recovered shirt was worn by the assailant (accused). Neither the house owner of the room wherefrom same is shown to have been recovered has been cited as witness nor even name of the house owner has been ascertained which makes the position very doubtful. 43. That apart, the incriminating circumstance i.e. blood stained shirt seized as per seizure memo EXPW-SK2 has not been specifically put to the accused, though exhibit EXPW-SK2 along with number of other exhibits have been jointly made mention of in one of question but same in any manner does not amount to substantial compliance of Section 342 Cr.P.C. The object of putting incriminating circumstances to the accused is to enable him to tender explanation. When the circumstance is couched in a form which deprives the accused to tender proper explanation, same cannot be made basis for conviction. In this connection it is quite relevant to quote as to what has been laid down in the judgment Ajay Singh v. State of Maharshtra reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2188: "The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accuseds failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give." 44. PW Rekha Rani (sister of the deceased) has stated that when she saw the accused running away, their hands were empty. PW Sumitra Devi has not stated that as to whether accused were carrying weapon of offence in the hand. Furthermore both deceased as well as his wife Subash Kumari were injured. Blood group of Subash Kumari has not been made mention of. It is also not made clear as to whether `Tokas are being used by the electricians for any work. 45. Furthermore both deceased as well as his wife Subash Kumari were injured. Blood group of Subash Kumari has not been made mention of. It is also not made clear as to whether `Tokas are being used by the electricians for any work. 45. There is no denying the fact that criminals have adopted new tactics and new strategies and it becomes very difficult to punish the criminals when the standard of proof is different from probable proof. Appreciation of evidence has to keep pace with the present trend so that the object of criminal law justice system may not get defeated. Insignificant discrepancies and minor contradictions are definitely to be ignored but it has to be kept in mind that no person in the grip of reasonable doubts gets punished. For ignoring the contradictions and inconsistencies, satisfaction has to be derived that there is only one position gatherable that it is only the accused and none else who has committed the crime. 46. Contradictions in the statement of star witness Subash Kumari are so grave which go to the root of the case. No doubt she was a natural witness, her position of being related witness or her position of being the victim cannot be ignored. She is a proper witness, her testimony cannot be discarded simply being a victim or a related witness but word of caution is there. Her testimony must stand the test. While appreciating her statement, major contradictions and inconsistencies as highlighted hereinabove give rise to only one conclusion that her credit-worthiness has been impeached. Her sole statement in the facts and circumstances, if would have been free from serious contradictions mentioned above, could be made basis for conviction but her statement as a whole, as detailed hereinabove, has given rise not only to a simple doubt but to a reasonable and serious doubt about the identity of the accused. 47. The same position has been compounded by the statement of Mahesh Sharma, the IO. It appears that the police with the object of showing that a murder case is solved has traveled beyond limits in most casual manner, as a result thereof serious doubts have crept in. It is a matter of concern that a precious life is lost and the spouse of the deceased badly injured but the assailants have remained to be punished. It is a matter of concern that a precious life is lost and the spouse of the deceased badly injured but the assailants have remained to be punished. No doubt learned trial has convicted the accused but there has been lack of proper appreciation of evidence. Doubtful position could be ignored but not when it is reasonable and serious. Benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case should have been awarded to the accused. 48. In the upshot, while allowing this appeal the conviction and sentence passed is set aside. Confirmation for life imprisonment sought is rejected. Accused is awarded benefit of doubt, so shall stand acquitted and be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. Copy of the judgment along with trial court record be send back to the trial court.