JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:-The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jallandhar, whereby he convicted the appellant-Joginder Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘Code’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant has been further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, under Section 411 of the Code. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Another co-accused-Banso was granted benefit of doubt in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the Code but was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Code and ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. 3. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement (Ex. PW-12/A) of accused-Joginder Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Jorhe Uppal, the present appellant, made to Amrik Singh, SHO, Police Station Nurmahal on 30.12.1998 at 10.30 A.M. The relvant extract from the translated version of the statement reads as under: - ……She did not come back till evening. We thought that she must have gone to her parents at village Billi Bhullar, P.S. Shahkot. When she did not come back till Monday, I went to village Billi Bhullar, P.S. Shahkot on Tuesday from where I came to know that she had never been to this village. Then, I took Gurpawanjit Singh, nephew of Amarjit Kaur and came back to my village and started her search. Today morning, I came to know that one deadbody was lying on the bank of canal minor leading to Sanghe Khalsa in the area of Uppal Khalsa. I then having taken along member Udham Singh and Sarpanch Karam Chand reached the spot and saw the deadbody wrapped/tied in a piece of cloth and identified it to be that of Amarjit Kaur the wife of my younger brother. Blood was oozing from its nostrils. I am fully confident that instead of making payment and taking back the cheque, said Amarjit Singh @ Shira Tundi and Baljinder Singh son of Sarwan Singh Jat r/o Uppal Khalsa have thrown her here after killing her. Blood was oozing from its nostrils. I am fully confident that instead of making payment and taking back the cheque, said Amarjit Singh @ Shira Tundi and Baljinder Singh son of Sarwan Singh Jat r/o Uppal Khalsa have thrown her here after killing her. Having left, member Udham Singh at the spot to Guard the deadbody, I alongwith Sarpanch was going to lodge report when you have met. Proceeding be initiated. I am the complainant LTI Joginder Singh attested sd/- Amrik Singh Insp/ SHO P S Nurmahal dated 30.12.1998. After FIR Ex. P-12/B was lodged, in pursuance of the said statement, investigation was taken into hand by the police and suspects named i.e. Amarjeet Singh @ Shira Tundi and Baljinder Singh son of Swaran Singh both the residents of Uppal Khalsa were arrested. On 3.1.1999, Major Singh, husband of the deceased-Amarjit Kaur made statement Ex. DA after coming back from Dubai. He stated that on 30.12.1998, he received a telephonic message at Dubai that Amarjit Kaur has been murdered. He came back to his village on 31.12.1998 and after arrival, consigned the dead body of his wife to fire. On 2.1.1999, he found the locks of boxes were lying opened which were kept in store and the articles were lying scattered. He found the purse containing golden ornaments, the Kissan Vikas Patras amounting to Rs. 90,000/-, Bank pass books of his wife, Fixed Deposit receipt of Rs. 40,000/- belonging to his sister as well as golden ornaments, including two golden bangles, two pair of ear rings, one golden chain, four rings, one golden set, currency notes of Rs. 12,000/- and one wrist watch, were missing. He also stated that the store was locked from outside and how the suit cases were broken when his son Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi aged 13-14 years and his daughter aged 6½ years were present in the house. He stated that Joginder Singh, his brother and Banso, his sister-in-law (brother’s wife) have murdered his wife for the sake of money and ornaments and got the false case registered against Amarjit Singh @ Shira Tundi and Baljinder Singh. He stated that Banso accused used to organize kitty parties and she had to pay money of so many persons and both of them were confident that his wife had much cash and huge ornaments and to get this cash and the ornaments, they killed his wife. He stated that Banso accused used to organize kitty parties and she had to pay money of so many persons and both of them were confident that his wife had much cash and huge ornaments and to get this cash and the ornaments, they killed his wife. He stated that on 2.1.1999, when he was conducting search of his house, both of them absconded. In pursuance of the said statement, the accused Joginder Singh and Banso were arrested on 12.1.1999. On the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex PH/1) made by Joginder Singh, two bangles of gold, one pair of ear rings, one other ear ring and two pairs of Jhanjaran and one wrist watch kept concealed in front of the house of Meet Singh his brother in a heap in the Haveli of Sucha Singh were recovered. He also disclosed that a bi-cycle and a shirt of his own were lying concealed in a heap of “Kup” of Turi. On the basis of that statement made by Joginder Singh one Hero cycle (Ex. PM) and his blood stained terri-cot shirt (cream color) were recovered (Ex.PN). Banso also made her separate disclosure statement (Ex. PF) wherein she pointed out about the concealment of certain gold ornaments. It may be noticed that memo of recovery (Ex. PG) is the joint recovery memo. The prosecution also examined the photographer Jaswinder Singh as PW-10, who proved the photographs of the recovery process as Ex. P1/A to Ex. P10/A and the negatives Ex. P/11A to Ex. P/20A. PW-7 -Gulwant Singh is a witness examined to prove the recovery process in pursuance of disclosure statements. 4. PW-2 Dr. Jai Krishan had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Amarjit Kaur wife of Major Singh on 30.12.1998 at 4.15 P.M. The cause of death was found asphyxia resulting from the manual throttling. As per the post mortem report (Ex. PB), clotted blood was present in the nostrils and the face. He deposed that the death occurred after 4.15 AM on 29.12.1998, whereas in post mortem report (Ex. PB) probable time that alleged between the death and the post mortem was stated to be within 36 hours. 5. As per the post mortem report (Ex. PB), clotted blood was present in the nostrils and the face. He deposed that the death occurred after 4.15 AM on 29.12.1998, whereas in post mortem report (Ex. PB) probable time that alleged between the death and the post mortem was stated to be within 36 hours. 5. The manner of occurance is sought to be proved by examining Major Singh-husband of Amarjit Kaur as PW-6 who is also a witness of the recovery of blood stained shirt on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Joginder Singh. PW-8 is the Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi aged 13-14 years son of the deceased who deposed that his mother went to Nurmahal to get money from Amarjit Singh @ Shira Tundi on 26.12.1998 at about 10/11.AM. She came back to the house in the evening and on Sunday, when he woke up, he enquired from Joginder Singh-accused about the whereabouts of his mother, but Joginder Singh replied that she had gone to her maternal uncle. In the evening, when he asked Joginder Singh again, he gave the same answer. It was on Wednesday that the dead body of his mother was recovered from the bank of the canal. Both Joginder Singh and Banso had slept in his house on Saturday night and both of them were sleeping in his house thereafter. PW-7-Gulwant Singh s/o Ajit Singh as mentioned above is the attesting witness of the recovery process. PW-3, Bahadar Singh s/o of Bhag Singh is a witness of having seen Joginder Singh and Banso carrying bundle on the carrier of bicycle and shawl was put on it. However, he turned hostile. PW-4, Puran s/o Biru deposed in respect of borrowing of Rs. 25,000/- in cash from him. PW-5, Karam Chand, Sarpanch s/o Dhanna Ram was examined to prove the extra judicial confession of Joginder Singh, accused but he turned hostile and inspite of the opportunity of cross-examination, no incriminating circumstance against the accused came on record. 6. Learned trial Court has found that PW-3, Bahadar Singh and PW-5, Karam Chand, Sarpanch are the co-villagers but have resiled from their previous statement as they are living in the village along with accused persons while the complainant is to go abroad. Having said so, learned trial Court found that opinion of the doctor that the death occurred after 4.15 AM on 29.12.1998 is merely an opinion. Having said so, learned trial Court found that opinion of the doctor that the death occurred after 4.15 AM on 29.12.1998 is merely an opinion. If the eye witness account is found to be truthful and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing out the alternative possibility need not be conclusive. Thus, the Court found the murder took place on 29.12.1998 and the police was informed by the accused Joginder Singh on 30.12.1998. The information about the location of the dead body of Amarjit Kaur by Joginder Singh shows that in order to save his skin, he lodged a false report with the police. The learned trial Court found that since the accused have been found in possession of the property of the deceased, therefore, inference is drawn that the appellant obtained possession of the property after the murder of the deceased-Amarjit Kaur. With the said findings, learned trial Court convicted Joginder Singhappellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 411 of the Code and Banso for an offence under Section 411 of the Code. 7. We have gone through the record carefully and find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, it need to be examined whether Amarjit Kaur died on the intervening night of 26-27th December as set up by prosecution or on 28th or 29th day of December 1998. 8. PW-8, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of the deceased-Amarjit Kaur has deposed that his mother had gone to Nurmahal to get money from Amarjit Singh @ Shira Tundi on 26.12.1998 at about 10/11.AM and came back in the evening. Thereafter, his mother was missing. It is not explained by the prosecution that where the deceased was on 27 or 28.12.1998 as the timing of the death of the deceased cannot be said to be prior to 29.12.1998. The condition of the dead body in the photographs (Ex. P-1) does not show any sign of de-composition which may show that Amarjit Kaur has died on the intervening night of 26 or 27.12.1998. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the son of the deceased that his mother had come back on 26.12.1998 i.e. Saturday. 9. Still further, in pursuance of the disclosure statements of Banso and Joginder Singh (Exs. PF and PH/1), the ornaments have been recovered vide the common recovery memo (Ex. PG). There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the son of the deceased that his mother had come back on 26.12.1998 i.e. Saturday. 9. Still further, in pursuance of the disclosure statements of Banso and Joginder Singh (Exs. PF and PH/1), the ornaments have been recovered vide the common recovery memo (Ex. PG). Though, the disclosure statements are separate but the recovery memo is common. Therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery affected is in pursuance of the disclosure statement of which of the accused. Though, in respect of bi-cycle and blood stained shirt, the disclosure statement is exclusively of Joginder Singh appellant but the said incriminating circumstance is not conclusive to hold the appellant guilty of a commission of crime of the death of Amarjit Kaur. The prosecution has failed to complete the sequence of event which may lead to the conclusion that it is the accused alone who committed the crime of death of Amarjit Kaur. 10. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record, we are unable to uphold the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently, we set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.3.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jallandhar and acquit the appellant Joginder Singh of the charges framed against him by granting him benefit of doubt. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. ------------0.S.L.0------------