Judgment M.JEYAPAUL, J. 1. Second and third respondents/1st and 2nd accused faced the trial for offences under Sections 302, 302/120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 2nd under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1954 . respondent Siri Kishan alias Bholu was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default, to undergo a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment. Infact, 2nd respondent had already undergone more than one year and as a result of which substantive sentence of one year had been set off against the period of custody already undergone by him. As far as the above other charges under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, 2nd respondent Siri Kishan alias Bholu and 3rd respondent Rekha were acquitted. 2. PW8 Chanderpati, having been aggrieved by the acquittal of both the accused for the major offence under Sections 302, 302/120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code has filed CRM No. A-148-MA of 2011, praying to grant leave to prefer an appeal as against the acquittal. As there has been a delay of 88 days in preferring the criminal appeal, a separate Crl. Misc. Application No. 6529 of 2011 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for condonation of delay. We have proposed not to waste our energy on the application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the Criminal Appeal. Rather, we have proposed to straightaway concentrate ourselves on the merit of the plea made by PW8 Chanderpati in CRM No. A-148-MA of 2011 seeking grant of leave to prefer an appeal as against acquittal. 3. PW8 Chanderpati gave a statement Ex.PC to the police stating that when she and her sons PW9 Kaptan, deceased Phool Kumar, and PW10 Satyawan were cleaning coriander on 14.2.2009 at about 11:30 PM, the deceased Phool Kumar received a telephonic call. He went down the street where there was no light. He was attacked by unknown persons with knife on his abdomen and fled away taking advantage of the darkness. Phool Kumar entered into the house with blood oozing out of his injury. He was taken to General Hospital, Sonepat, and thereafter, he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak, but, unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries. He was attacked by unknown persons with knife on his abdomen and fled away taking advantage of the darkness. Phool Kumar entered into the house with blood oozing out of his injury. He was taken to General Hospital, Sonepat, and thereafter, he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak, but, unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries. She also stated in her complaint that her family had an enmity with Teka, Mota, Bholu, Bali, Kela, and Raj Kumar. She suspected that they had murdered Phool Kumar. 4. During the course of investigation, 2nd respondent Siri Kishan alias Bholu and 3rd respondent Rekha were arrested. A motorcycle, a mobile phone and a knife were recovered from the possession of accused Siri Kishan @ Bholu on the basis of discovery statement given by him in the presence of PW9 Kaptan. After the investigation was over, challan was filed before the Ilaqua Magistrate. 5. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses on its side. PW8 Chanderpati, PW9 Kaptan and PW10 Satyawan turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. 6. The judgment of the trial Court was thoroughly perused by us. The following material aspects were taken up for serious consideration by the trial Court while recording acquittal of both the accused for the major offence under Sections 302, 302/120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code : (i) PW8 Chanderpati, the complainant in this case was declared hostile and she was subjected to cross examination. She has categorically deposed that it was only Teka, Mota, Bholu, Bali, Kela, and Raj Kumar, who were responsible for the commission of offence of murder. She was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. (ii) PW8 Chanderpati would depose that her son PW10 Satyawan informed her that it was only Siri Kishan who on account of his illicit relations with accused Rekha committed murder of Phool Kumar. (iii) PW10 Satyawan deposed before the trial Court that he never informed her mother PW8 Chanderpati that Phool Kumar was murdered by accused Siri Kishan @ Bholu. The message alleged to have been passed on by PW10 about the role of Phool Kumar was also turned to be untrue. (iv) PW10 Satyawan also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has categorically deposed during the course of cross-examination that he never implicated anybody for the murder of his brother Phool Kumar. The message alleged to have been passed on by PW10 about the role of Phool Kumar was also turned to be untrue. (iv) PW10 Satyawan also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has categorically deposed during the course of cross-examination that he never implicated anybody for the murder of his brother Phool Kumar. It is his assertion that some unknown persons had committed the murder of Phool Kumar with a knife. (v) PW9 Kaptan who was none other than the brother of the deceased was unfortunately associated by the investigating officer during the course of interrogation of the accused for recording disclosure statement Ex.PD/1. It is the admission of PW9 Kaptan that no independent witness was called to join the interrogation embarked upon by investigating official. In the absence of independent witness to the recovery of knife, it is not safe to rely upon the interested testimony of PW9 Kaptan with regard to the recovery of knife. (vi) There is no report from the Forensic Science Laboratory to connect the blood stains found on the knife with the deceased Phool Kumar. Therefore, the recovery of material object also does not advance the case of the prosecution. (vii) PW6 ASI Satywan has provided call details of mobile phone of Mahipal allegedly used by 2nd respondent to ASI Om Prakash. Mere call details would not establish the case of the prosecution. 7. It is an unfortunate case where the complainant who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution has come out with the present application seeking leave to prefer an appeal. When the complainant herself had not supported the case of the prosecution, she cannot come forward with such an application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal. In the instant case, her two sons PW9 and PW10 also turned hostile. Apart the fact that they had not supported the case of the prosecution, it is found that they were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The investigating officer had chosen to associate the very brother of the deceased for the recovery of material object. Non-association of an independent witness for recovery of the material object looms large in this case. Apart the fact that they had not supported the case of the prosecution, it is found that they were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The investigating officer had chosen to associate the very brother of the deceased for the recovery of material object. Non-association of an independent witness for recovery of the material object looms large in this case. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was really a recovery of weapon at the instance of 2nd respondent, the prosecution miserably failed to connect the blood stains in the weapon with that of the blood group of the deceased. Mere recovery of the call details wold not clinch the charge. The trial Court has rightly recorded verdict of acquittal as against 2nd and 3rd respondents for offences under Sections 302, 302/120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any reason to sustain the application filed by PW8 Chanderpati seeking leave to appeal against such an acquittal. Therefore, CRM No. A-148-MA of 2011 stands dismissed. As we have disposed of the main application itself on merit, CRM No. 6529 of 2011 stands dismissed as infructuous.