JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.:- This order shall dispose of the aforesaid criminal appeal and criminal revision which have arisen out of one and same impugned judgement dated 29.9.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 2. The Union Territory, Chandigarh-appellant has challenged the judgement dated 29.9.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide which all the three respondents were acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1.7.1996, at about 5.25 a.m. Comrade Inderjit Singh Grewal made statement before Inspector Mani Ram (PW20) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PW7/H) was recorded by S.I. Gurmukh Singh on the same day at 5.45 p.m. Inderjit Singh complainant has stated in his statement that he lived with his family in House No.55, Village Pandheri (U.T. Chandigarh) and he is Secretary of the CPM Chandigarh. He stated that Comrade Sadhu Singh was a leader of their party and he was killed by the terrorists in the year 1990 at Mohali. The first wife of Sadhu Singh is Mohinder Kaur (PW16). Since Sadhu had no child so with the consent of the family he married with Kirna @ Kiran, younger sister of her first wife Mohinder Kaur. Because of the marriage with Kirna, he adopted daughter of his brother Bant Ram. However, in this regard no formal adoption deed was completed. After the death of Sadhu Singh, the second Kirna @ Kiran was got married with Mohan Lal, younger brother of Sadhu Singh. Sadhu Singh had constructed a house bearing No.62 in village Pandheri in which Mohinder Kaur, Kirna, Santosh and Mohan Lal (accused) who was a Lecturer in the school were residing, while the other brothers, namely, Bant Ram and Satpal were residing in village Nasinghan, District Patiala. Santosh, whose age was 19/20 years had developed love affairs with a boy of Chandigarh and she wanted to marry with him, which was not liked by the members of the family. On the asking of Mohinder Kaur the complainant had taken Santosh to her ancestral house in village Nasinghan, but in the month of May, 1996, the said boy had taken away Santosh from the said village and thereafter their whereabouts were not known till the date of occurrence. On the asking of Mohinder Kaur the complainant had taken Santosh to her ancestral house in village Nasinghan, but in the month of May, 1996, the said boy had taken away Santosh from the said village and thereafter their whereabouts were not known till the date of occurrence. Because of this, all the three accused, namely, Mohan Lal, Bant Ram and Sant Ram were blaming Mohinder Kaur and Kirna for abduction of Santosh and on that count they were having dispute amongst them. However, the matter was resolved with the intervention of the complainant and others. 4. On 1.7.1996, at 4.00 p.m. the complaint was informed by his son Gurpreet Singh on telephone that dispute was going on among Mohan Lal, Bant Ram and Sant Ram (accused), Mohinder Kaur (injured) and Kirna (deceased) and thereafter, he reached there and found that Mohinder Kaur and Kirna were lying in a pool of blood and at that time there was a rope around the neck of Kirna which was being pulled by Mohan Lal and Sat Pal, while Mohinder Kaur was trying to save her/Kirna in an injured condition. But accused Bant Ram caught hold of her. However, with the intervention of the other persons, Mohinder Kaur was rescued, but Kirna had expired. Photographer was called at the spot who snapped the photographs. The Investigating Officer lifted the blood from the spot and took into possession slippers of Kirna (deceased). The Investigating Officer also found the dead body of Kirna lying on the first floor in front of kitchen and found one tied rope around her neck. Thereafter he prepared the inquest report and got signed the same from Injderjit Singh Grewal and Mohan Lal. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared with correct marginal notes. The dead body of Kirna was sent to General Hospital, Chandigarh for post mortem examination. Bant Ram accused was present at the place of occurrence and his kurta-pyjama were found stained with blood. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared with correct marginal notes. The dead body of Kirna was sent to General Hospital, Chandigarh for post mortem examination. Bant Ram accused was present at the place of occurrence and his kurta-pyjama were found stained with blood. The Inspector took into possession the same by sealing the same in a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex.PW7/A. Kurta-pyjama of accused Mohan Lal which were blood stained was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW7/E. After some time, Sat Pal accused was also arrested and his kurta-pyjama which was also stained with blood were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW7/F. He recorded the statement of witnesses and on return to the Police Station, he deposited the case property with MHC with seal intact. 5. On 1.7.1996, Dr.Ajay Kumar Pandey declared Mohinder Kaur injured unfit to make statement. However, she was declared fit to make statement by Dr.Mugdha Kulkarni on 3.7.1996. Mohinder Kaur had deposed the similar facts as deposed by Comrade Inderjit Singh Grewal, complainant. Beside that she stated that on 30.6.1996, Mohan Lal visited Nasinghan to his brothers. On 1.7.1997, at about 2.00 p.m. he returned back at Pandheri. She and Kirna were present at home at that time. They both asked him to have lunch, but he did not answer properly. At about 3.00 p.m., she went to purchase milk and when she came back at about 3.30 p.m. the door was found locked from inside and some noises were coming out. She knocked the door, however, the door opened itself. Thereupon, she saw that Mohan Lal and Sat Pal were putting a rope around the neck of Kirna and giving beating to her and they were also asking about Santosh from Kirna. Their neigbourers Inderjit Singh Grewal, his son Gurpreet Singh and Balbir Kaur were watching this incident. Since she was witnessing the incident, Bant Ram who was beating Kirna with Mohan Lal, caught hold of her and gave beating to her. At the same time, Bant Ram took the rope around her neck and also tried to kill her (Mohinder Kaur). Mohinder Kaur maintained that she saw Mohan Lal while killing Kirna/Kiran. Inderjit Singh Grewal, his son Gurpreet Singh and Balbir Kaur saved her. If the aforesaid persons did not save her from Mohan Lal, Sat Pal and Bant Ram, they had also killed her. Mohinder Kaur maintained that she saw Mohan Lal while killing Kirna/Kiran. Inderjit Singh Grewal, his son Gurpreet Singh and Balbir Kaur saved her. If the aforesaid persons did not save her from Mohan Lal, Sat Pal and Bant Ram, they had also killed her. Thereafter, she became unconscious. After completion of other formalities, challan against the accused was presented in the IIlaqa Magistrate, who vide his order dated 7.11.1996, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court finding a prima face case made out against the accused-respondents charge-sheeted the accused under Section 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate its case the prosecution examined as many as 20 witness. 7. Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey PW1 had attended Mohinder Kaur on 1.7.1996, at about 5.00 p.m. He found that Mohinder Kaur was disoriented, irritable and not responding to verbal commands fully. There was history of bleeding from her mouth and head injury. She was discharged on 2.7.1996, after giving antibiotic, Ivftet.Poxoid. Vide police request Ex.PW1/B, he declared Mohinder Kaur unfit to make statement. PW2 Dr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, had treated the head injury and the bleeding from the mouth and nose of Mohinder Kaur on 1.7.1996. She was discharged on 2.7.1996, from Neurosurgery Department. Dr. Mugdha Kulkarni examined Mohinder Kaur on 2.7.1996, and declared unfit to make statement at 11.15 a.m. vide endorsement Ex.PW3/A. This witness had declared Mohinder Kaur fit to make statement on 3.7.1996 at 12.45 a.m. vide endorsement Ex.PW3/D. This was on account of the fact though the patient had been discharged on 2.7.1996, she did not actually leave the hospital. PW4 Sohan Singh proved the site plan Ex.PW4/A. PW6 S.I. Inderpal Singh had taken into possession photographs Ex.PW5/1 to PW5/8 and PW5/9 to PW5/16 are the negatives. PW6 Dr. Mohinder Kaushal conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mrs. Kiran wife of Mohan Lal on 3.7.1997, at 3.45 p.m. and observed as under:- “The length of the body was 5 feet 4 inches, well nourished, rigor mortis was found to be partial, tongue was between teeth, blood was trickling from nostral and mouth and ileds were congested. Kiran wife of Mohan Lal on 3.7.1997, at 3.45 p.m. and observed as under:- “The length of the body was 5 feet 4 inches, well nourished, rigor mortis was found to be partial, tongue was between teeth, blood was trickling from nostral and mouth and ileds were congested. A well defined slightly depressed mark with reddish and echymosed margins around the neck horizontally placed situated just below thyroid cartilage more marked on back of neck, more on left side going in front and then to the right side of neck, then slightly defused upto left side. Face was conjusted. On dissection of ligature mark, there were haemorrhage spots in the subcutaneous tissue and adjacent muscles. Larynx and trachea, lungs, spleen, kidneys were congested. Blood was trickling from mouth. About 250 ml of semi solid was found in stomach. Chyme was noticed in small intestine faecal matter with gases escape was noticed in large intestine and bladder was found empty.” 8. PW7 Inderjit Singh Grewal is the lodger of the FIR and he has reiterated the facts stated in the statement Ex.PW7/A and he also proved the certain recoveries and other formalities conduced by the Investigating Officer. PW8 S.I. Prem Chand and PW12 S.I. Jangir Singh had reached the place of occurrence on receipt of the wireless message at about 4.15 p.m. with regard to the murder of a woman and another woman Mohinder Kaur having in an injured condition. They had brought Mohinder Kaur, injured to PGI, Chandigarh. PW9 MHC Nand Kishore, PW10 Constable Virender Kumar, PW11 Constable Dalbir Singh and PW14 Channan Lal, PW15 Constable Ashok Kumar are the formal witnesses and they proved their affidavits Exs.PA, PB, PC, PD and PE. PW13 Sukhpal is the brother of Mohinder Kaur, injured witness and he had reiterated the facts as deposed by her sister Mohinder Kaur. PW17 Dr. V.V. Bhardwaja had gave his report to the fact that Mohinder Kaur sustained simple injuries and the nature of injury was declared as simple vide report Ex.PG. The Doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination on the persons of Mohinder Kaur found the following 8 injuries:- “1. Right central incision loose. Bleeding from mouth present. 2. Right black eye with sub conjunctival haemorrhage. 3. Haematoma 2 cm in size over ociput. 4. Swelling right side of face. 5. Multiple abrasions over neck anteriorly below chin, extending on both sides from midline. Right central incision loose. Bleeding from mouth present. 2. Right black eye with sub conjunctival haemorrhage. 3. Haematoma 2 cm in size over ociput. 4. Swelling right side of face. 5. Multiple abrasions over neck anteriorly below chin, extending on both sides from midline. Larged abrasion 4 x 6" irregular in midline. 6. Haematoma 3 x 3 cm anteriorly over anterior aspect of left forearm. 7. Haematoma and tenderness anteriorly below clavicle on right and left side. 8. Abrasions over lower part of forearm on lateral side size 3 x 2 cm.” 9. PW18 H.C. Baljit Singh proved the copy of DDR (Ex.PK). PW19 S.I. Balihar Singh and PW20 Inspector Mani Ram had conducted the investigation in this case and they have deposed about the details of investigation conducted in this case. 10. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein, all the allegations appearing in the evidence were put to them. They denied the same in toto. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In their defence, they have examined Santosh wife of Sushil Kukar who has stated that from her childhood she was residing at the house of Sadhu Singh with Mohinder Kaur at village Pandheri and she was brought up by them. She further stated that Kiran Bala is the younger sister of Mohinder Kaur and Mohinder Kaur was not favouring her marriage with Sushil Kumar. On that count, Inderjit Singh objected her marriage with Sushil Kumar. She further stated that Kiran Bala demanded some property from the share of Sadhu Singh. Bant Ram accused is her father and he was not linked at all with accused Mohan Lal and other accused. At the time of her marriage she was residing in the house of Mohinder Kaur. 11. After thorough appraisal of case file and evidence available before it, the learned Trial Court by giving benefit of doubt to the respondents, acquitted them of the charges framed against them vide the impugned judgment dated 29-9-2000. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State has argued that the present is a case of eye-witnesses account where all the accused committed the murder of Kirna and injured Mohinder Kaur (PW-16). He further argued that in the present case, Mohinder Kaur, PW-16 having been injured at the hands of the respondents is a credible and trustworthy witnesses. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State has argued that the present is a case of eye-witnesses account where all the accused committed the murder of Kirna and injured Mohinder Kaur (PW-16). He further argued that in the present case, Mohinder Kaur, PW-16 having been injured at the hands of the respondents is a credible and trustworthy witnesses. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Bhawani and Others reported in 2003(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 875 (SC). He further argued that the occurrence was duly witnessed by PW-7 Inderjit Singh Grewal and further that all the accused were arrested from the spot and that their clothes having seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-7/D, PW-7/E and PW-7/F which were smeared with human blood, thus leave no manner of doubt that the accused, with common intention to kill, committed the murder of Kirna and injured Mohinder Kaur having a grudge for allowing Santosh (daughter of Bant Ram- respondent no.2) to run away with a boy (Sushil Kumar) with whom she loved. It is further argued that since all the respondents were against the marriage of Santosh with Sushil Kumar, so therefore, Santosh having escaped from the custody of Mohinder Kaur and Kirna so as to run away with the aforesaid boy, Kirna has been put to death while Mohinder Kaur had been seriously injured at the hands of the respondents. 13. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the occurrence was not witnessed by the complainant as on receiving the telephone call with regard to the occurrence, he took him around 10 to 15 minutes to reach from Sector 20, Chandigarh to the place of occurrence and that by that time the deceased had already been strangulated and murdered. Even no version is forthcoming from the complainant PW-7 as to who strangulated Kirna. It is argued that the entire prosecution story is improbable and unnatural, as number of persons had gathered around the scene of occurrence but no one tried to save the deceased from the clutches of the respondents. Even no version is forthcoming from the complainant PW-7 as to who strangulated Kirna. It is argued that the entire prosecution story is improbable and unnatural, as number of persons had gathered around the scene of occurrence but no one tried to save the deceased from the clutches of the respondents. It is, further argued that though in the present case Mohinder Kaur PW-16 had been injured in the occurrence but her testimony under the facts and circumstances of the present case should only be relied upon if the same is truthful and in consonance with probabilities. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents has cited judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tulshiram Bhanudas Ksambale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 CRL. L.J.1566. Even the key witnesses to the occurrence namely Gurpreet Singh, Balbir Kaur and Tavinderjeet Singh were given up by the prosecution and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that there is an inordinate delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate at Panchkula in as much as the occurrence in the present case took place on 1-7-1996 at about 4.00 p.m. in House No.62, Village Badheri, U.T., Chandigarh whereas FIR exhibit PW-7/H was registered at 5:45 p.m. at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh while the special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate at about 9:15 p.m. i.e. after a delay of four hours. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant who has also filed Criminal Revision No.414 of 2001 which was ordered to be heard alongwith the present appeal vide order dated 25th May, 2001 by this Court, has also endorsed and supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the State and thus has prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the case file and are of the view that the present appeal filed by the State sans merit and thus deserves to be dismissed. 16. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the case file and are of the view that the present appeal filed by the State sans merit and thus deserves to be dismissed. 16. Admittedly, occurrence in the present case took place on 1-7- 1996 at about 4-00 p.m. in House No.62, Village Badheri, U.T., Chandigarh and FIR in the present case was registered at 5-45 p.m. at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh and special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate at 9:15 p.m. i.e. after about 4 hours of the occurrence. There has been no explanation forthcoming as to who brought the information with regard to the presence of Illaqa Magistrate at Panchkula and further as to why there was a delay in sending the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate especially when no place in and around Chandigarh takes more than 30 to 45 minutes to reach, even in peak hours. Prompt lodging of FIR is a safeguard provided under law so that the investigating agency is not able to change the actual version and rule out the false implication of any person. This is a prerequisite to ensure a fair investigation. Delay in registration of the FIR only introduces coloured versions so as to rope in innocent persons. 17. In the present case, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in registration of the FIR and sending special report to the Illaqa Magistrate is fatal to the prosecution case. 18. As per statement of Mohinder Kaur, PW-16, she had gone to fetch milk at about 3-30 p.m. and that when she returned back home after 45 minutes, she found that Kirna (deceased) was being strangulated by Mohan Lal and others, meaning thereby, the husband was killing his own wife alongwith his brothers. Even, Mohinder Kaur was also injured in the said incident. Even, Mohinder Kaur was also injured in the said incident. Going by the said version as given by Mohinder Kaur, PW-16, it surfaces that she came back home after fetching milk at about 4.15 p.m. whereas the information with regard to the occurrence was given by Gurpreet Singh to his father Inderjeet Singh, PW-7 at about 4:00 p.m. It is not discernable and is beyond comprehension as to how Mohinder Kaur could be injured in the present occurrence and had seen the present occurrence when it is her own version that after fetching milk, she came back at around 4:15 p.m. whereas, as per Gurpreet Singh, the occurrence had already ended at about 4:00 p.m. From the statements of aforesaid two witnesses, it appears that truth is not coming from the mouth of these witnesses as it is also the version of Inderjeet Singh that when he reached the place of occurrence, his son Gurpreet Singh and number of other persons including Balbir Kaur were present at the scene of occurrence, but despite that no one rescued the deceased from the clutches of the respondents especially when it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondents were armed with deadly weapons. Even no independent witness was examined by the prosecution despite their availability and Balbir Kaur and Gurpreet Singh who were witnesses to the occurrence, as per testimony of PW-7, Inderjeet Singh (complainant), were given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. Their evidence under the facts and circumstances of the present case being eye witnesses to the occurrence was necessary especially that of Gurpreet Singh, at whose instance the complainant was attracted to the place of occurrence. Withholding the said witnesses from examination, creates a ring of doubt about the prosecution story especially when the weapon of crime i.e. the rope put around the neck of Mohinder Kaur by Mohan Lal and Sat Pal as per PW-7 Inderjeet Singh has, not been recovered in the present case. Withholding the said witnesses from examination, creates a ring of doubt about the prosecution story especially when the weapon of crime i.e. the rope put around the neck of Mohinder Kaur by Mohan Lal and Sat Pal as per PW-7 Inderjeet Singh has, not been recovered in the present case. Further, to our mind, the genuineness of the prosecution story is clouded with suspicion as the rope allegedly recovered has not been connected by the prosecution with the crime particularly when the Doctor PW-6 has categorically deposed that “it is very difficult for me to say at this stage whether this rope is the very ligature which had been put in by me after post-mortem of Mrs. Kiran.” Further the Investigating Officer, PW-20 has deposed that “he did not remember if the rope Exhibit P-3 shown to him on that date in the Court was the same which was tied on the neck of the deceased.” 19. The names of both, the deceased as well as the injured were known to the prosecution witnesses as well as to PW-13 Sukhpal (brother of Mohinder Kaur) and thus their identity was established at the very first instance but surprisingly, a perusal of Exhibit DE i.e. Hospital Receipt would show that when the dead body of Kirna was brought to O.P.D., “ unknown” was written in the column of name and just underneath the same where the father name was to appear, the name of the deceased “Kirna” was mentioned. From the perusal of the said receipt, Exhibit-DE it is apparent that the name of the deceased has been added lateron just to concoct the prosecution version. Further, even as per PW-6 Dr Mohinder Kaushal “at the time of performing the Post mortem, it had come to my notice that the body brought to the Civil Hospital was declared to be unknown but at the time when I was performing the Post mortem, the identity was fixed. The body was identified before me by Chaman Lal and Inderjeet Singh PW-7 at about 4:00 p.m.” 20. The aforesaid admission on the part of PW-6 coupled with Receipt Exhibit DE puts a nail in the coffin of the prosecution causing a serious dent in the prosecution version. 21. As per Post mortem report Exhibit PW-6/A, there were no injury marks on the back, buttock and elbow of the deceased. The aforesaid admission on the part of PW-6 coupled with Receipt Exhibit DE puts a nail in the coffin of the prosecution causing a serious dent in the prosecution version. 21. As per Post mortem report Exhibit PW-6/A, there were no injury marks on the back, buttock and elbow of the deceased. It does not appeal to reasoning that without any resistance, the deceased would have allowed the respondents to strangulate her and that too in the presence of number of persons including Balbir Kaur and Gurpreet Singh. Absence of injury marks on the body parts; where they should have been, under the facts and circumstances of the present case is a sufficient ground alone to disbelieve and discard the prosecution story especially when the same is viewed keeping in focus the statement of PW-6 Dr. Mohinder Kaushal, who categorically deposed that “the possibility of person who is strangulated receiving laceration behind her back, buttocks, and elbows cannot be ruled out. In such a case the clothes may also get blood stained as a result of the struggle.” 22. Further PW-16, Mohinder Kaur who is an injured witness in the present case has categorically stated that ‘rope was put around her neck’ but the said testimony is falsified on perusal of the deposition made by Dr.V.V.K.Bhardwaja, PW-17, wherein no injury having been caused by a rope was found on the neck of Mohinder Kaur. Thus, in view of the said backdrop, it can safely be concluded that the witnesses of the present case are concealing the truth so as falsely implicate the respondents in the case, as from the above, it is evident that key witnesses in the present case particularly PW-16 are telling a lie but the circumstances are not. Deliberate improvements have been made by the witnesses while stepping into the witness box so as to confirm the prosecution version but the said concocted version has left marks of doubt and probabilities un-known to the witnesses, as has been stated by us in the preceding paras of the said judgment. 23. In the case of Tulshiram Bahanudas kambale (supra), the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in paragraph No.16 has held as under:- “It is true that these witnesses are alleged to be injured witnesses but we have grave doubts about their veracity and truthfulness. 23. In the case of Tulshiram Bahanudas kambale (supra), the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in paragraph No.16 has held as under:- “It is true that these witnesses are alleged to be injured witnesses but we have grave doubts about their veracity and truthfulness. We wish to emphasise that before the evidence of an injured witness can be accepted by a Court, it should be satisfied that he is a truthful witness and the account furnished by him is in consonance with probabilities. There is no rule of appreciation of evidence which requires that because a witness is injured his evidence ipso facto should be accepted as a gospel truth.” 24. The same was the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Badri Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 SC 560. 25. In view of the law narrated above coupled with the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be prudent to accept the testimony of PW-16, Mohinder Kaur (injured witness), so as to order conviction of the respondents herein, in the present case. 26. Even the arrest of Respondent no.3, Satpal in the manner alleged by the prosecution, is doubtful. PW-19, Sub Inspector Balihar Singh (Investigating Officer), has deposed that “at about 10-00 p.m. Satpal accused was seen passing through the Gali (street) on the ground floor and on identification by Inderjeet Singh, PW/7, he was arrested by Inspector Mani Ram, and at the time of his arrest, he was wearing a blood stained kameez.” It can be said with certainty that the arrest of Satpal in the manner portrayed by the prosecution is totally unnatural and improbable as no accused would be seen roaming around in the same area where he had committed a crime, just after about 5-6 hours and that too wearing a blood stained shirt, waiting for the police to come and arrest him. In view of the above, we find no force in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the State. In the present case presumption of innocence of the respondents is further strengthened by acquittal. Moreover, there is no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. Therefore, by upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 29.9.2002, the present appeal is dismissed. In the present case presumption of innocence of the respondents is further strengthened by acquittal. Moreover, there is no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. Therefore, by upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 29.9.2002, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the revision filed by Mohinder Kaur is also dismissed. ------------