JUDGMENT : R.B.Misra, Judge: The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to the judgment dated 22.7.1996, passed in Sessions Trial No.7-NS/7 of 1993 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Solan, acquitting the accused for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. F.I.R. Ext.PW-24/A was recorded on the information of Kamal Dutt (PW-1) indicating that on 21.6.1991 at about 8 p.m. after coming at his home from marriage party, he heard cries from the National Highway road at the same time Johri Ram (PW-3) also called him to come to the road side, when he hardly had covered half of the distance, heard sound of starting of a motor cycle, which proceeded towards Kandaghat side. On reaching the spot, cries of somebody was noticed from 10 feet below the road. In the meantime, Ganesh Dutt also arrived there, where (PW-3) Johri Ram revealed that some one after killing some one has escaped driving a red motor cycle bearing No.PCI-396 and that person was Sikh gentleman bearing pink coloured turban. PW-1 came to the national highway and requested one truck driver for taking him to Kandaghat, but he declined as his truck was loaded with sand. In the meantime, PW-11, Subhash Sharma, came there, was asked to inform the Kandaghat police on telephone, who accordingly informed the police. Tara Dutt, Dharam Dutt and Parkash Chand etc. also reached at the spot thereafter and kept waiting near the dead body till the arrival of police. The informant (PW-1) also revealed that the girl about 22/24 years, wearing red suit, was lying on the ground chest down with her body smeared with blood. 3. Constable Rajinder Kumar registered F.I.R.No.52/91 in reference to the message from PW-11 Subhash Sharma. 4. The accused was apprehended, blood stained earth and stones were recovered vide memo.Ex. PW-1/B, grass vide memo. Ex. PW-1/C. Kirpan Ex.P-3 lying near the dead body was also taken into possession vide recovery memo., Ex.PW-1/D. Similarly, 2 pieces of broken glass of wrist watch stained with blood, cover of Kirpan Ex.P-5 were also taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/G respectively. PW-1/B, grass vide memo. Ex. PW-1/C. Kirpan Ex.P-3 lying near the dead body was also taken into possession vide recovery memo., Ex.PW-1/D. Similarly, 2 pieces of broken glass of wrist watch stained with blood, cover of Kirpan Ex.P-5 were also taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/G respectively. Sketch of Kirpan Ex.PW-1/E and site plan Ex.PW-25/C was prepared and the dead body was photographed through PW-4 Sh.Satish Sharda. 5. The charge was framed for the offence under Section 302/201 IPC and the case was committed to the Sessions trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses. PW.1 Kamla Dutt, PW-3 Johri Ram and PW-10 Ganesh Dutt are alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, whereas, PW-2 Ram Swaroop is formal witness in whose presence the jama-talasi of accused was allegedly conducted. PW-4 Satish Sharda, took photographs Ext.P-10 to Ext.P-22. PW-5, Jasvinder Singh being owner of scooter (motor-cycle PCI-396) is formal witness. PW-6, Sarojani Gill, Superintendent of Nari Niketan, PW-7 R.P.Kaushal Tehsildar, Joginder Paul Patwari, PW-9 Sh. Nand Lal father of deceased are formal witnesses of link vidence. PW-11 Subhash Sharma is informant in this case. PW-12 Amba Dutt, PW-17 S.I. Prem Chand, PW-18 Garib Dass, PW-20 Brahm Prakash, PW-24 SI Duni Chand, and PW-25 Khub Ram are investigating officers in this case. PW-23, Dr.S.K.Dhiman, conducted post-mortem of the dead body of female and also medically examined the accused. 6. The accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying the prosecution case has stated that on 21.6.1991 he attended the court work from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and thereafter he boarded the bus from Panchkulla to Shimla and at about 12-15 mid night when the bus reached at Kandaghat, he was forced to get down from the bus on the pretext of being a terrorist from Punjab, however, when he disclosed his identity that he is Stenographer in a Court at Chandigrh, the investigating officer conducted verification and falsely implicated him in a case. 7. PW-23, Dr.S.K.Dhiman, conducted the post mortem examination of the victim (Sunita) on 22.6.1991, giving examination report with opinion as below:- (a) stab wound on left side of chest wall on post auxiliary line along inter costal space 4 cms x 1 entering chest cavity between 7th and 8th rib. 7. PW-23, Dr.S.K.Dhiman, conducted the post mortem examination of the victim (Sunita) on 22.6.1991, giving examination report with opinion as below:- (a) stab wound on left side of chest wall on post auxiliary line along inter costal space 4 cms x 1 entering chest cavity between 7th and 8th rib. (b) Stab wound on left side of chest wall on posterior auxiliary line along inter costal space 4 cms x 1 cm entering cavity between 8th and 9th ribs. A) Wound of left side of chest wall has entered the plural cavity and has cut left long on lateral side in lower love for about 3 cms. x 1 cm x 4 cms. Left cavity full of blood. B) Wound of left side has entered lower part of left plural cavity, punctured diaphragm and punctured the spleen in post superior part entering its substance in to half of its thickness. Scalp Insized wound on left occiput in interior posterior direction 3 cms. Scalp deep into half cms. in entire bone of skull has been exposed. Chest: Front (A) stab wound in 2nd intercostals space 2 cms. right to sternal border along line of intercostals space. It is 3 cms x ½ cm. going in chest cavity. Incised: b) Wound 2 cms x 1 cm x .5 cms. in front of sternum at level of 3rd costal cartilages. c) Incosed wound 2 cms. x .5 cm into skin deep on left side of chest 3 cms left to left sternal border on 4th rib. d) Stab wound 3 cms x ½ cm x 4 cms. deep on left breast going towards lateral side. 8. Accused Baldev Singh was also examined on 22.6.1991 as follows:-“Incised wound on middle 1/3 of left fore arm lateral side transfers below upwards 4 cms x 1 cm x 6 ½ freshly bleeding, arms is swollen in middle 1/3, on the inner side there is a size wound about 1 cm x 1 ml.ltr. 2) lacerated wound on lower third of right fore arm on medial part 1 cm x ½ cm x 1 cm freshly bleeding. 3) Bruise on lateral side on right thigh in upper 1/3 transverse 4 cms x 1“ red in colour. Breath is smelling of alcohol indicating the person has consumed alcohol but not intoxicated. He had taken two X-rays of the arm and there has been no fracture seen. 3) Bruise on lateral side on right thigh in upper 1/3 transverse 4 cms x 1“ red in colour. Breath is smelling of alcohol indicating the person has consumed alcohol but not intoxicated. He had taken two X-rays of the arm and there has been no fracture seen. On examination of wound No.1 under local anesthesia probe enter the wound indicating to the through and through wound.” 9. PW-23, Dr.S.K.Dhiman, in his cross examination has stated that there were no dragging marks on the body of deceased when he conducted post mortem examination and there was no abrasion, contusion or laceration on the body of deceased. PW-23 admits that if a person thrown from a height from 20 to 25 feet and if he falls on hard surface and bushes then lacerations, contusions and abrasions are all to be present on the dead body. The stab wound is caused by sharp pointed weapon and incised wound is caused by sharp edged weapon. These two wounds are different kinds of nature and the possibility of both the injuries i.e. two different kinds of wounds on the deceased were with two different weapons. PW23 has also stated in his cross examination that the accused was brought to him at 1 AM on 22.6.1991 and after examining the accused, he was permitted to go and again accused Baldev Singh brought before PW-23, who examined the accused again and was kept in the hospital till 10 AM (morning). PW-23 in his cross examination has further stated that he had not taken the clothes of the accused into his possession when he was medically examined on both the occasions after being produced before him by the police. PW-23 in his cross examination has further stated that the word recent, written on the MLC Ext.PW-23/D denotes the injuries to the person Baldev Singh accused was of the duration of maximum one hour. Injuries on the person of the accused may be a result of fall and could also be possible by blow of dandas. 10. PW-1, Kamla Dutt, in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that Johri Ram (PW-3) told him that someone had killed a person and has left the place on motorcycle and further told that the person was a Sikh gentleman wearing pink colour turban, on a red motorcycle No.PCI-396. 10. PW-1, Kamla Dutt, in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that Johri Ram (PW-3) told him that someone had killed a person and has left the place on motorcycle and further told that the person was a Sikh gentleman wearing pink colour turban, on a red motorcycle No.PCI-396. On the inquiry by PW-1, as to whom was the person crying below the road, nobody replied. The National Highway was about 25 feet from this place where they found a truck loaded with sand. The request to the driver of the truck to help for carrying that person to Kandaghat was declined as the truck was loaded with sand. When they tried to go towards Waknaghat on foot, a person, namely, Subhash came there on a motorcycle or scooter, was asked to inform Kandaghat police telephonically. Police came there at about 11 p.m. or 12 p.m. midnight. Police saw the spot and recorded his statement which is Ext.PW-1/A which was signed by him. Police saw blood stains on the road and marks of dragging from the link road towards the national highway and also upto the place where the dead body was lying. Police took into possession blood stain earth and stone from the road and put the same in a Pullinda and sealed it. The police also took into possession blood stained grass, leaves and blood stained stones from the place where the dead body was found lying. One chura lying near the dead body was also taken into possession. Two pieces of wrist watch glass were also taken into possession. The cover of chura was also taken into possession. One pink coloured turban, one blood stained shirt and one pant were taken into possession from one sikh gentleman who was already present in the police station at that time. The rexin seat cover of the motorcycle stained with blood was also taken into possession. Recovery memos Ext. PW-1/H and Ext. PW.1/J were prepared which are signed by said sikh gentleman. 11. In cross examination, PW-1 has stated that police saw the dead body at about 10.30 PM and the dead body was removed to Kandaghat in a truck at about 5 AM and taken directly to the hospital and Kula Nand accompanied the police in the truck. Johri Ram and Ganesh Dutt did not accompany them in the truck. 11. In cross examination, PW-1 has stated that police saw the dead body at about 10.30 PM and the dead body was removed to Kandaghat in a truck at about 5 AM and taken directly to the hospital and Kula Nand accompanied the police in the truck. Johri Ram and Ganesh Dutt did not accompany them in the truck. PW-1 and Kula Nand reached in the hospital after about 10 – 15 minutes and reached the police station at about 6 AM. At about 8 or 8.30 AM they came back from the Police Station. The police had disclosed the name of the accused Baldev Singh at 6 AM while he was present in the Police Station. PW-1 in his cross examination has further stated that at about 7.45 PM when Subhash Chand met them on the National Highway, they did not go to that person, to provide any aid or to ascertain whether that person was alive or dead. Within 15 – 20 minutes, about 15 persons assembled there. PW-1 in his cross examination has further stated that he had disclosed to the police that he had asked Subhash to inform the police over the telephone from Kandaghat that a Sikh gentleman wearing pink turban with read motorcycle bearing No.PCI_396 has escaped after killing someone. 12. PW-2, Ram Swaroop, while assisting the investigation, has stated that on search of Baldev Singh accused a sum of about 200/-, one wrist watch without its glass were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. 13. PW-3 Johri Ram has stated that while coming from Waknaghat to his house, when he reached Hatri Mod, he heard cries. At that time Ganesh Dutt was also with him. PW-3, along with Ganesh Dutt, raised voice for calling people and also gave call to Kamla Dutt (PW-1), whose house was at a distance of about 100 – 150 meters from that place. PW-3 saw that two persons were fighting with each other on the link road, Hatri to Wakna below the National Highway, out of whom one was lady and one Sikh gentleman. The Sikh gentleman threw the lady below the road and ran away from that place on the motorcycle towards Kandaghat. The Sikh gentleman was wearing pink colour turban and two coloured shirt of white and black and the motorcycle was of red colour bearing No.396. The Sikh gentleman threw the lady below the road and ran away from that place on the motorcycle towards Kandaghat. The Sikh gentleman was wearing pink colour turban and two coloured shirt of white and black and the motorcycle was of red colour bearing No.396. When they reached near the place of occurrence on the link road, they saw a lady lying on the ground with her abdomen on the ground and she was crying. PW-1 and Ganesh Dutt enquired from her but she did not reply. PW-1 then sent Subhash to inform the police over the phone and PW-3 remained there for about an hour also and thereafter returned to his house. In cross examination, PW-3 deposed that his statement was recorded in the Police Station. PW-3 had informed about the incident to Kamla Dutt (PW-1) who had come to the spot, however (PW-1) had not seen the face of that person who left on the motorcycle with speed. PW-3, in his cross examination, has further stated that he and Ganesh Dutt heard the cries from a distance of 20 meters and they did not try to give first aid to the lady nor tried to take her to the hospital for medical aid and stayed there for one hour. The motorcycle crossed at a distance of 15 feet from the place where they were standing and at that time the Sun had set but there was no darkness. PW-3 and Ganesh Dutt had read the number of the motorcycle in the light of a vehicle which was coming from behind. Ganesh Dutt is brother-in-law (Wife’s sister’s husband). PW-3 has stated in his cross examination, that he had stated to the police that he had seen one Sikh gentleman and one lady fighting with each other and has also stated that the Sikh gentleman had thrown the lady below the road. PW-4, Satish Sharda, took the photographs of the dead body. 14. PW-5, Jasvinder Singh, has stated that he was associated by the police and got released his motorcycle Hero Honda No.PCI-396 from the Court at Solan vide Supurdarinama Ext.PW4/A. Jaswant Singh had taken his motorcycle for attending some private work on 21.6.1991. PW-4, Satish Sharda, took the photographs of the dead body. 14. PW-5, Jasvinder Singh, has stated that he was associated by the police and got released his motorcycle Hero Honda No.PCI-396 from the Court at Solan vide Supurdarinama Ext.PW4/A. Jaswant Singh had taken his motorcycle for attending some private work on 21.6.1991. In cross examination, PW-5 has stated that he did not know accused Baldev Singh, however, has stated that his motorcycle was stolen in the year 1991 by someone and after recovery was released to him by a Court at Chandigarh. PW-5 has denied that Baldev Singh accused had helped him in releasing the motorcycle and has also denied that the accused had taken his motorcycle in the month of May 1991 and thereafter returned the same. It has also been denied that on 21.6.1991 accused Baldev Singh came to PW-5 and requested to give his motorcycle to him as he had some urgent work to do. It has also been denied that he enquired from his office after two days and from there he came to know that Baldev Singh accused along with his motorcycle is involved in some case at Solan. PW-5 in his cross examination has stated that he was told by Daya Singh that on account of some quarrel with the police near Solan his motorcycle has been impounded by the police. PW-5 has further stated that he came to know that his motorcycle has been impounded by the police at Kandaghat, therefore, he went there. At Kandaghat, he came to know that his motorcycle has been involved in a murder case and Baldev was the accused in that murder case. PW-5 has also stated that he came to know about the incident when he came to the Court at Solan to get his motorcycle released and then he came to know that even then he did not know as to who was involved in the criminal case. 15. PW-6, Smt.Sarojani Gill, Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Chandigarh, has stated that she was Incharge of Nari Niketan, Chandigarh since 1989 and has acknowledged that Sunita (victim) an inmate of the Nari Niketan, was admitted in the Nari Niketan on 19.12.1988 under the orders of Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh. On 18.3.1989, she had escaped from the Nari Niketan without her permission and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged with the police. On 18.3.1989, she had escaped from the Nari Niketan without her permission and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged with the police. At the time of admission, the address of the girl was given as House No.952, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City and her father’s name was told as Shri Prem Nath and under the orders of the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh, she was allowed to leave the Nari Niketan as she wanted to go herself. At that time, Sunita (victim) had given her different address i.e. daughter of Nand Lal, House No.5668, Tin Wali Gali, Kabari Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and Sunita (victim) did not want to go with her parents and escaped on 18.3.1989, before they came to the Nari Niketan. 16. PW-7, R.P.Kaushal, Tehsildar (Retd.), has stated that he had opened the seal wherein dagger was kept and the same was shown to Dr.Dhiman. PW-8 Joginder Paul, Patwari Halqua, Waknaghat, who had prepared Naksha Ext.PW-8/A of the place of occurrence. PW-9, Nand Lal, father of the victim Sunita, had stated that he was having seven children, out of which four sons and one daughter are alive and one son and one daughter had died and when his wife had fallen from the roof she was admitted in PGI and his daughter Sunita (victim) was deputed to look after her and from there she was abducted and on recovery, she was sent to Nari Niketan, Chandigarh. PW-9 went with his wife to Nari Niketan to meet her and asked Sunita (victim) to accompany them but she refused. Sunita (victim) came to PW-9 on 8.6.1991 from the Nari Niketan and told to PW-9 that she was residing with one Baldev Singh, Sikh gentleman at Chandigarh and had become pregnant and Baldev Singh had assured to marry her. Baldev Singh was working as Reader in some Court at Chandigarh and PW-9 has also stated that Sunita (victim) had told him that Baldev Singh is now not ready to accept her as his wife. In cross examination, PW-9 has indicated that the Superintendent of the Nari Niketan told him that as and when Sunita (victim) was mentally fit she would be sent to home, however, despite such assurance Sunita (victim) did not come to the house of PW-9 and had come on 8th or 9th June, 1991. 17. In cross examination, PW-9 has indicated that the Superintendent of the Nari Niketan told him that as and when Sunita (victim) was mentally fit she would be sent to home, however, despite such assurance Sunita (victim) did not come to the house of PW-9 and had come on 8th or 9th June, 1991. 17. PW-10, Ganesh Dutt, deposed that on 21.6.1991 he, along with Johri Ram (PW-3), had gone to attend a function in connection with the death of his father-in-law and started from Bathetu at about 4 or 4.30 PM and when they reached one kilometer short of Waknaghat near Kandaghat on a point from where Johri Ram was to go to his village Dhar on National Highway, they heard noise of cries. There was one Sikh gentleman and one lady quarrelling with each other on the link road, namely, Wakna Hatri. The Sikh gentleman took that lady and threw her below the road and then they raised voice to call the people of the area. On hearing their voice, Kula Nand and Kamla Dutt came there. House of Kamla Dutt was about 200 feet from the place from where they raised the voice. PW-10 further states that they started towards the place of occurrence and saw a red coloured motorcycle No.PCI-396 being driven in a high speed towards Kandaghat by that Sikh gentleman and at the relevant time, he was wearing yellow coloured turban. PW-10 and Johri Ram noticed that a lady was crying with pain and PW-10 did not enquire from her and went towards a truck loaded with sand which was standing on the National Highway and asked the driver of that truck to assist them in taking the injured to the hospital, as the vehicle was fully loaded with sand, as such, the driver refused. In the meanwhile, Subhash came with his motorcycle, who telephoned to the police from Kandaghat. PW-10 has further stated that he saw blood stains at that place where the lady was found to be lying with her mouth towards the ground, from where she was picked up and thrown below the link road. In cross examination PW-10 has stated that he told to his parents about the occurrence but did not tell anyone in the village. In cross examination PW-10 has stated that he told to his parents about the occurrence but did not tell anyone in the village. The house of Johri Ram was at a distance of 600 meters from the place where PW-10 was standing on the National Highway and Johri Ram was staying at the spot, whereas, PW-10 had left for his village. PW-10 in his cross examination has also stated that he told the parents that from National Highway he had seen a Sikh gentleman and a lady quarrelling with each other and 6 -7 persons had assembled there in his presence. 18. PW-11, Subhash Sharma, in his endeavour to support the prosecution case, has stated that on 20.6.1991, he was present in the house in his village. After hearing some noise, he came out of his house on the road side where Kamla Dutt met him there who told him to ring up Police Station, Kandaghat informing them that a person has ran away on a motorcycle after committing some crime. PW-11 has further stated that he took lift from one scooterwala and reached Kiaribangla from where he rang up Police Station, Kandaghat and gave the information to the police and PW-11 has further stated that he saw many persons gathered and has also observed that a lady was lying in the bushes below the road and was crying. PW-11 accompanied the police to the place where said lady was lying. PW-11 found one Kirpan lying near the injured lady. In cross examination, PW-11 has stated that it took about 10 to 15 minutes from his village to Kiarighat and then to the spot. Police came to the spot after about half an hour of his arrival. From police side, there was Duni Chand ASI along with 2/3 Constables. Police remained there up to 10.30 and PW-11 did not accompany the police, however, his statement was recorded. In his cross examination, he has further stated that he told to the police that he went to Kiarighat after taking lift of scooter from the road side. PW-11 has further stated that he told the police that at that time Kamla Dutt and Johri Ram were also present there, however, statement of PW-11 was recorded by the Police at 9 PM on the spoton 21.6.1991. 19. PW-11 has further stated that he told the police that at that time Kamla Dutt and Johri Ram were also present there, however, statement of PW-11 was recorded by the Police at 9 PM on the spoton 21.6.1991. 19. PW-12, Amba Dutt, Sub Inspector, has stated that on 21.6.1991 at about 8 PM, he along with Head Constable Bishan Dutt, Constable Prakash Chand, Constable Dharam Singh were on patrol duty in Sproon Bazar on the National Highway. At that time he was having walky-talky set with him on which he received a message from Kandaghat Police Station that one Sikh gentleman with pink turban on motorcycle No.PCI-396 has fled away towards Solan after committing murder of a lady. In Nakabandi of the National Highway from where one road goes towards Subathu in Sproon, about 10 – 15 minutes thereafter, a motorcycle came from Kandaghat side which was being driven by a Sikh gentleman. The vehicle number was PCI-396. After giving signal, he stopped the vehicle and found blood stains on his hands and he was also having injury on his left arm which was bleeding. The motorcycle was taken to Police Post and Police Station, Kandaghat was informed accordingly and after half an hour ASI Duni Chand came from Kandaghat and the driver as well as the motorcycle was handed over to ASI Duni Chand. PW-12 has further stated that he recognized that person who was present in the Court. Earlier he was Sikh gentleman, then he had no long hair on the head nor wearing a turban with trimmed beard. In his cross examination, PW-12 has stated that he did not mention that the said person was wearing a turban and was having hair on his head and beard, even he had not mentioned the name of that Sikh gentleman. PW-12 has further stated in his cross examination that he had mentioned the number of the motorcycle with its driver and ASI Duni Chand took the accused in his presence. PW-12 has further stated that in the Roznamcha, in Police Post, no complete identification of that person was recorded. PW-12 has also denied in his cross examination that the motorcycle, mentioned above, was not recovered by PW-12 from the accused and the motorcycle was taken into possession from Daya Singh. PW-12 has further stated that in the Roznamcha, in Police Post, no complete identification of that person was recorded. PW-12 has also denied in his cross examination that the motorcycle, mentioned above, was not recovered by PW-12 from the accused and the motorcycle was taken into possession from Daya Singh. PW-12 has further stated in his cross examination that he did not remember whether in his statement made to the police, he had stated that the person they had caught was Baldev Singh, accused. 20. PW-13, Head Constable Hukam Chand, while temporarily posted as MHC in Police Station, Kandaghat from 20.6.1991 to 28.6.1991 with whom the case property was deposited by ASI Duni Chand and SHO Khub Ram. PW-14, Surinder Kumar, Constable No.250, brought ten sealed parcels from Chemical Laboratory, Shimla and handed over the same to MHC Kandaghat. PW-15, Hukam Chand, was posted in Police Station, Kandaghat and on 4.7.1991 a parcel containing viscera was handed over to him by MHC which he handed over in the Chemical Laboratory, Karnal. PW-16, Khem Chand Saini, Superintendent (Retd.), Sessions Court, Chandigarh had acknowledged Ext.PW-16/A to Ext.PW-16/D as service record of the accused which was supplied to PW-16 under the order of Sessions Judge. PW-17, ASI Prem Chand, was posted as Incharge, PP Sairi, Police Station, Kandaghat who recorded the statement of Smt.Naresh Walia, Khem Chand Saini and Chander Kishore. PW-18, Inspector Garib Dass, posted as SHO Police Station, Kandaghat in the year 1993, had recorded the statements of Smt.Sarojini Gill and Ramesh Thapa and took into possession the record pertaining to the deceased from Smt.Sarojini Gill, Principal, Nari Niketan, Chandigarh as Ext.PW-18/A to Ext.PW-18/F. PW-19, Tilak Raj, Inspector (Retd.), who was posted as District Inspector, Solan and had prepared the challan and submitted the same in the Court. PW-20, Head Constable Brahm Prakash, PW-21 Constable Nitya Prakash and PW-22 Constable Chain Singh in their endeavour had supported the prosecution in discharge of their usual duties to the extent role assigned to them, however, their assistance is formal. 21. PW-24, SI Duni Chand, in his endeavour to support prosecution case has stated that he had chased motorcycle sitting in Truck No.HPA-4845 and apprehended the motorcycle and brought accused back to Kandaghat and thereafter he was sent for medical examination. Recovery memo of the motorcycle Ext.PW-24/B was prepared by PW-24 in the presence of witnesses Haminder Singh and Ram Swaroop. PW-24, SI Duni Chand, in his endeavour to support prosecution case has stated that he had chased motorcycle sitting in Truck No.HPA-4845 and apprehended the motorcycle and brought accused back to Kandaghat and thereafter he was sent for medical examination. Recovery memo of the motorcycle Ext.PW-24/B was prepared by PW-24 in the presence of witnesses Haminder Singh and Ram Swaroop. The seat cover of the motorcycle was also taken in to possession vide Ext.PW-1/J, the shirt, pant and turban Ext.P-6 to Ext.P-8 of the accused were also taken into possession which were stained with blood vide Memo 24 Ext.PW-1/H in the presence of the witnesses Kamla Nand and Tula Ram. F.I.R. Ext.PW-4/A was scribed by MHC Hukam Chand. PW-24, in his cross examination, has also stated that he left Police Post, Saproon at about 9.50 PM and reached at 10 PM at Police Station, Kandaghat and entered in the rapat Roznamcha about his arrival along with accused and motorcycle and at about 10.15 PM the accused was sent for medical examination. 22. PW-25, Khub Ram, Dy.S.P., Anti Corruption Zone, Solan, has stated that on 21.6.1991 at 8.15 PM, he received information on telephone that one Sardar (Sikh gentleman) after killing one person is running towards Solan on the motor-bike bearing No.PCI-396. The information received on telephone was entered in Rapat No.24 dated 21.6.1991 Ext.PW-25/A, PW-25 has sent this message to all Police Stations and started towards Solan in search of the said person and had reached Dharampur, he was informed on VHF Set that a Sikh gentleman had been apprehended by the Saproon Police. Thereafter, PW-25 came to Saproon Police Post but ASI Duni Chand had already taken this Sikh gentleman to Kandaghat. 25 Thereafter, PW-25 went to Police Station, Kandaghat where he noticed accused along with motor cycle and had also noticed blood on the clothes of the accused as well as injuries on his left arm and thereafter PW-25 went to the spot along with photographer where Kamla Dutt and Kula Nand were present and statement of PW-1 was recorded and taken into possession blood stained soil and stones Ext.P-1 vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/B. He also took into possession the grass Ext.P-2 vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/C. The grass was also stained with blood. Kirpan Ext.P-3 was lying near the dead body which was also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/D, two pieces of glass of wrist watch stained with blood were also lying on the road were also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/F. The cover of the Kirpan Ext.P-5 was also lying near the dead body was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/G. He also prepared the sketch of Kirpan Ext.P-3 vide memo Ext.PW-1/E and site plan Ext.PW-25/C was prepared. Inquest report of the dead body Ext.PW-22/B was prepared and despatched the dead body for conducting the post mortem to Civil 26 Hospital, Kandaghat, post mortem report is Ext.PW-23/A. The accused was also sent to Civil Hospital, Kandaghat vide an application Ext.PW-25/D to obtain the medical opinion of the doctor regarding the injuries sustained by the accused. ASI Duni Chand took into possession the blood stained clothes of the accused and the seat covers of the motorcycle. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were sealed by the doctor and handed over to PW-25. The blood stained clothes of the accused, deceased and articles recovered from the spot were sent to FSL Bharari for opinion / examination. 23. In cross examination, PW-25, however, has reiterated his testimony in examination-in-chief and has stated that on the basis of Rapat Ext.PW-25/A, a message was conveyed to the Police Stations as well as Police Posts and in Ext.PW-25/A mention of one Sikh gentleman was not entered. However, it has been denied by PW-25 that the story of Sikh gentleman has been introduced subsequently. In cross examination, PW-25 has also stated that the post mortem was conducted on 22.6.1991 and the identification of the dead body was not established. PW-25 in his cross examination has also stated that the accused was formally arrested by the police at about 11 AM. 24. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, it appears in cross-examination Dr. S.K. Dhiman (PW.23) has admitted that there were no dragging marks on the dead body of the deceased when he conducted the postmortem. He further stated in cross-examination that if a person is thrown from height and if he falls on hard surface and bushes, then laceration, contusion and abrasion are likely to be present on the body. PW.23 has also stated that stab wound is caused by sharp pointed weapon and incised wound is caused by sharp edged weapon. He further stated in cross-examination that if a person is thrown from height and if he falls on hard surface and bushes, then laceration, contusion and abrasion are likely to be present on the body. PW.23 has also stated that stab wound is caused by sharp pointed weapon and incised wound is caused by sharp edged weapon. There were two wounds of different kinds noticed at the time of postmortem. As per medical report possibility cannot be ruled out that both these injuries could be caused with two different weapons, whereas, in view of the testimony of PW.1 Kamla Dutt, PW.3 Johri Ram there were signs of dragging on the national highway and in view of testimony of PW.10 Ganesh Dutt, one Sikh gentleman lifted the lady and threw her 28 down below the road, such contradiction is significant and goes to the root of the case. 25. In view of testimony of PW.9 Shri Nand Lal, father of the deceased, it appears that accused had illicit relations with deceased and he started living with her at Chandigarh and deceased became pregnant and when the accused refused to marry her, it gave cause to the accused to kill the deceased. However, assertion of PW.9 is neither corroborated by any of the independent witness nor the prosecution has able to prove such motive of killing the deceased on the basis of materials on record or in reference to the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the accused-respondent was that Sikh gentleman who was last seen at the place of occurrence while throwing the deceased down below the national highway. The prosecution has also not been able to prove from the records or evidences that the Sikh gentleman was none else but the accused himself who committed the crime in the present case, as such, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikramjit Singh 29 alias Vicky Versus State of Punjab, 2007 CRI. J. 1000, goes against the prosecution. 26. PW.3 Johri Ram testified before the Court that on the fateful day sikh gentleman wearing pink coloured turban and shirt of black and white colour threw the lady below the road and ran towards Kandaghat on motorcycle PCI-369 written in English words. J. 1000, goes against the prosecution. 26. PW.3 Johri Ram testified before the Court that on the fateful day sikh gentleman wearing pink coloured turban and shirt of black and white colour threw the lady below the road and ran towards Kandaghat on motorcycle PCI-369 written in English words. In cross-examination, PW.3 has further testified that motorcycle crossed at a distance of 15 feet from the place where he was standing alongwith PW.1. PW.3 when confronted with his statement recorded by the police, wherein, he admitted that he had not stated to the police that sikh gentleman had thrown the lady below the road, rather he himself contradicted his statement in cross-examination that the number of motor cycle was written in Hindi. It is pertinent to note here that in his cross-examination-in-chief, he has specifically stated that he could not recognize sikh gentleman and cannot able to say that he was present in the Court. 27. PW.11 is the star witness of the case on whose information police came into action and accused was allegedly apprehended on motorcycle at Saproon. As per testimony of 30 PW.11, PW.1 asked him to inform the police that a person has fled away on motorcycle from the place after committing crime. In his statement, PW.11 has no where stated that it was the sikh gentleman who threw the lady down below the road nor he has mentioned the registration number of the motor cycle. Under these circumstances it is not understood what kind of information was given to the police about the person who committed the crime and without proper and clear information, how the police apprehended the accused in the crime in question. Even Rapat No.24 Ex.PW.25/A received by Khub Ram does not disclose the name of sikh gentleman. The prosecution has also miserably failed to explain that when person alongwith motorcycle was apprehended by Saproon police, why his identification, name or address was not mentioned in the Rapat. Similarly, another document, Rapat No.20 was also silent about the arrest of sikh gentleman by police Chowki Saproon. Ex.PW.22/A also did not disclose that sikh gentleman was apprehended alongwith motorcycle, who later on, was identified as Baldevo Singh accused. 28. It has further come in evidence that Kandaghat police received the information about sikh gentleman at 8.15 P.M. and by 8.30 P.M., the accused was apprehended by Saproon police. Ex.PW.22/A also did not disclose that sikh gentleman was apprehended alongwith motorcycle, who later on, was identified as Baldevo Singh accused. 28. It has further come in evidence that Kandaghat police received the information about sikh gentleman at 8.15 P.M. and by 8.30 P.M., the accused was apprehended by Saproon police. Even PW.11 has categorically stated that his statement was recorded by the police at 9.00 P.M. when the accused was already in police custody, then why the name of accused did not figure in the FIR and if he was in police custody and was apprehended at 8.30 P.M., then why the name of accused was not mentioned in the inquest report. Similarly, in FIR Ex.PW.24/A which was lodged at 12.15 A.M., on 22.6.1992, the name of accused was not recorded therein. PW.23 Dr.S.K. Dhiman after examining the accused-respondent has noted the injuries on his person and has opined that nature of injuries were simple in nature caused with sharp edged weapon as well as blunt weapon and in reference to these injuries MLC Ex.PW.23/D was issued. In cross-examination PW.23 has stated that injuries on the person of the accused Baldev was of the period of maximum one hour which could have been due to fall and could also be possible by blow of dandas. The medical expert has further admitted 32 that the accused was brought to him at 1.00 A.M. (midnight) and as per MLC also he was brought to hospital at 1.00 A.M., on 22.6.1991 and was admitted as indoor patient on 9.00 A.M. and was discharged at 10.00 A.M. PW.23 has categorically stated that the maximum duration of the injuries on the person of accused was one hour and admittedly, he was examined after 1.00 A.M. (midnight) on 22.6.1991, which goes to show that at about 8.30 P.M. or 9.00 P.M., there was no injury on the person of accused and at the most he sustained injuries between 12 midnight to 1.00 A.M. The presence of injuries on the person of the accused do not go against accused-respondent. Though the accused has not explained the injuries on his person, however, the prosecution was under legal obligation to explain these injuries on the person of the accused. 29. Though the accused has not explained the injuries on his person, however, the prosecution was under legal obligation to explain these injuries on the person of the accused. 29. In view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Shanker Shetty Versus State of Maharashtra, (2002)6 SCC 596, pragraph 10 in reference to circumstantial evidence, in the case of murder, non-explanation of injuries on accused by prosecution assumes significance when there are circumstances which make prosecution case doubtful. For the relevant purpose the relevant extract of paragraph 10 is extracted as below:- “......But non-explanation of injuries assumes significance when there are material circumstances which make the prosecution case doubtful. Reference in this connection may be made to recent decisions of this Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji Versus Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145 and Kashiram Versus State of M.P., 2002 1 SCC 71. In the present case, non-explanation of injuries on the appellant by the prosecution assumes significance as there are circumstances which make the prosecution case showing the complicity of the appellant with the crime, highly doubtful.” Similar observations were also made by Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in Baldev Singh Versus State of Haryana, (2008) 14 SCC 768. The relevant portion of paragraph 7 is extracted as below: “7. In the background of what has been stated above relating to the law on circumstantial evidence, the only question to be examined is whether the presence of the injuries on the accused can be held to be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. The trial court held that the accused was examined on 24.3.1993 by the doctor, PW.3 who found abrasions on the thighs and hip joints of the accused, as the injuries must have been received in a scuffle. This circumstance found support from the finding of chappals and other articles. In facts and circumstances the presence of injuries on the accused cannot be held to be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. 30. The present case is not of direct evidence and is of circumstantial evidence and as per settled law, the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court made on circumstantial evidence has been elaborated in Baldev Singh's (supra). 30. The present case is not of direct evidence and is of circumstantial evidence and as per settled law, the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court made on circumstantial evidence has been elaborated in Baldev Singh's (supra). Accordingly, the relevant observations are extracted as below:- “5.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court and the High Court found that :(1) the rape was not proved; (2) extra-judicial confession was not proved; (3) last seen evidence as projected by the prosecution through the evidence of Inder Raj (PW.9) was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. But having so held, the trial court found the presence of injuries on the accused to be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Thus, it is submitted that it is by no stretch of imagination the determinative factor to hold the appellant guilty. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment. 6. “9. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh V. State of Rajasthan, (1977) 2 SCC 99:AIR 1977 SC 1063, Eradu Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa V. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330: AIR 1983 SC 446, State of U.P. V. Sukhbasi, 1985 Supp SCC 79: AIR 1985 SC 1224, Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1987 SC 350 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 560 : AIR SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to [negate] the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. In Bhagat Ram Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to [negate] the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in Chenga Reddy V. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1205, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp.206-07,para 21) '21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent with his innocence.' 11. In Padala Veera Reddy V. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) Scc 706: AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10) '(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; .(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; .(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with his innocence.' (12). In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992)2 SCC 86, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. (13). It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. (13). Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book Wills' Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: .(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; .(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.' 14. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far as in 1952. 15. In Hanumant Govind Nagundkar V. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, it was observed thus:(AIR pp.345-46, para 10). '10.....it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypotheses of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.' 16.A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are; (SCC p. 185, para 153) .(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or ' should' and not ' may be' established; .(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; .(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; .(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and .(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocent of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan V. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 Scc 180 : (SCC pp. 187-90, paras 9-16), State of Haryana V. Jagbir Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 261 and Kushuma Ankama Rao V. State of A.P., (2008) 13 SCC 257. 31. In view of observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanpal V. State by Public Prosecutor, 2009 Cri. L.J,. 4647, prosecution has to prove its own case. 187-90, paras 9-16), State of Haryana V. Jagbir Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 261 and Kushuma Ankama Rao V. State of A.P., (2008) 13 SCC 257. 31. In view of observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanpal V. State by Public Prosecutor, 2009 Cri. L.J,. 4647, prosecution has to prove its own case. The Court cannot shift burden of proof on accused and specifically an appeal against acquittal in murder case, and after making appraisal of evidences if view taken by the trial court was certainly possible or plausible view then the acquittal of accused cannot be set aside by merely substituting own reasons by the High Court. The scope of dealing the appeal under acquittal Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaisingh and others V. State of Karnataka, (2007) 10 SCC 788, has observed that presumption of 40 innocence is strengthened if an accused is acquitted by the trial court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ankoos and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 460, has observed as under:- “.....Be that as it may, the view of the trial court in passing the judgment of acquittal is a possible view and cannot be said to be palpably wrong on facts or based on erroneous view of law and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal. It is true that five persons were done to death in the dead of night in a ghastly manner and the whole incident is quite shocking but in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence against the appellants connecting them to crime, view of the trial court in passing the judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be unjustified.” 32. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record we are of the considered view that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused and has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In our considered view the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no scope of any interference in the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 33. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are hereby discharged.