Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Present Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttaranchal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/II Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2003, whereby accused-respondent Pindar alias Bhupendra was acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2) PW3 Munesh Kumar wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 24.05.2002 to Station Officer, Police Station Laksar (Haridwar) regarding the murder of his younger brother Sona Ram. According to the informant, Sona Ram left his house on 24.05.2002, at 07:00 P.M. While leaving the house, Sona Ram told that he was going to meet Pindar (accused-respondent) to take his (Sona Ram’s) salary. He did not return till 10:30 P.M. Then some people informed PW3 Munesh Kumar that Sona Ram was lying in unconscious state in a nullah (water channel). When PW3 went to such nullah, he found that Sona Ram was dead. According to the informant, a dispute arose between Sona Ram and Pindar regarding payment of money in the past also. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-9) was lodged on 24.05.2002, at 11:30 P.M., in Police Station Laksar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2002, initially under Section 302 of IPC against accused Pindar. Investigation began on the basis of said FIR. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) was submitted against the accused-respondent. When the prosecution opened it’s case, charge in respect of the offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was framed against accused-respondent Pindar alias Bhupendra, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 14 witnesses, namely, PW1 Smt. Suman, PW2 Smt. Attarkali, PW3 Munesh Kumar, PW4 Rajesh Kumar, PW5 Puran Mal, PW6 Prem Chand, PW7 Pankaj Kumar, PW8 Suba Ram, PW9 S.I. Chandra Mohan Singh, PW10 A.S.I. Babu Ram, PW11 Dr. O.P. Sharma, PW12 S.O. Yogendra Pal Singh, PW13 C.O. Ummed Singh and PW14 Constable Pradeep Negi were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Ram Kumar was examined in defence on behalf of the accused-respondent. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Ram Kumar was examined in defence on behalf of the accused-respondent. After conclusion of the trial, learned court below did not rely upon the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused-respondent Pindar alias Bhupendra of the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State. 3) PW1 Smt. Suman, PW2 Smt. Attarkali and PW6 Prem Chand were respectively the sister, mother and father of the victim. These witnesses suspected accused Pindar behind the killing of Sona Ram. They said that there was some dispute between them regarding payment of money. PW3 Munesh Kumar was the informant and brother of the victim, who wrote complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to the Station Officer, Police Station Laksar. PW4 Rajesh Kumar and PW7 Pankaj Kumar were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW8 Suba Ram was the witness of preparation of inquest report (Ext. Ka-4). PW9 S.I. Chandra Mohan Singh took into possession certain articles (towel, empty bottle and bottle containing country made liquor) from the place of incident and prepared recovery memos (Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3) thereof. PW9 also prepared necessary papers, viz., inquest report (Ext. Ka-4), sketch of dead body (Ext. Ka-5), Police Form No. 13 (Ext. Ka-6) and letter (Ext. Ka-7) to CMO for conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of victim. PW10 A.S.I. Babu Ram prepared chik FIR (Ext. Ka-9) on the basis of complaint written by PW3 Munesh Kumar. PW11 Dr. O.P. Sharma was the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sona Ram on 25.05.2002, at 02:20 P.M., and prepared postmortem report (Ext Ka-11) thereof. PW12 S.O. Yogendra Pal Singh initiated investigation of the case and recorded statements of the mother, sister and father of the victim. He also recorded statements of witnesses Puran Mal, Pankaj Kumar alongwith others and also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-12). PW13 C.O. Ummed Singh completed the investigation of the case. He affected arrest of accused Pindar and recorded his statement. PW13, after interrogating the witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) against accused Pindar. PW14 Constable Pradeep Negi was the formal witness, who took the dead body of the victim in a sealed cover for postmortem. PW13 C.O. Ummed Singh completed the investigation of the case. He affected arrest of accused Pindar and recorded his statement. PW13, after interrogating the witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) against accused Pindar. PW14 Constable Pradeep Negi was the formal witness, who took the dead body of the victim in a sealed cover for postmortem. DW1 Ram Kumar was an employee of PW5 Puran Mal. [Evidence of PW5 will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs of the judgment]. DW1 denied having seen accused Pindar with victim Sona Ram and Bhutto in his (Pindar’s) flourmill on 24.05.2002, at 09:30 P.M. in the night. He also denied that there was some dispute relating to payment of money between the accused and the victim. 4) PW5 Puran Mal, in the instant case, was the only prosecution witness, whose evidence is worth mentioning in detail. In his examination-in-chief, he said that his shop, in the name and style of ‘Vikas Dairy’, was situated in Simli, near Railway Bridge. There was a road in front of his shop. PW5 said that the flourmill of accused-respondent Pindar was situated in the west of his shop. Sona Ram worked in the flourmill of Pindar. PW5 said that he closes his shop at 10:00 P.M. On 24.05.2002, he (PW5) saw Sona Ram (victim) in the flourmill of Pindar at 09:30 P.M. One Bhutto was also present with Sona Ram and Pindar. Pindar, Sona Ram and Bhutto used to sit, eat and drink together. PW5 closed his shop at 09:30 P.M. on the fateful day (24.05.2002). On the selfsame day, at 11:00 P.M., PW5 heard from someone that Sona Ram fell from the rooftop. Sona Ram fell in the nullah (water channel). When PW5 reached at the place where the dead body of Sona Ram was lying, he found that the police personnel as well as the family members of the victim were present there. Sona Ram was found dead. His dead body was being taken by the policemen. PW5 did not enquire from the family members of Sona Ram as to how the victim died. PW5 could not disclose the name of the person who told him (PW5) that Sona Ram fell from the rooftop. 5) In the cross-examination, PW5 said that the Investigating Officer enquired from him about the incident on the next day. PW5 did not enquire from the family members of Sona Ram as to how the victim died. PW5 could not disclose the name of the person who told him (PW5) that Sona Ram fell from the rooftop. 5) In the cross-examination, PW5 said that the Investigating Officer enquired from him about the incident on the next day. PW5 told the Investigating Officer the next day that he saw Sona Ram in the flourmill of Pindar. PW5 did not know as to where Sona Ram went thereafter. The Investigating Officer interrogated PW5 in village Simli. There were many a grocer shops in the vicinity of the shop of PW5. All the shops were open. The shopkeepers were present in their respective shops. PW5 did not go back to his shop on the fateful day. He slept at his home. When he heard the hue and cry, then only this witness came out and saw the dead body of Sona Ram. He could not tell the year, month and date of the incident in his cross-examination. The whole statement of PW5 was set at naught when he said that he came to know through the villagers only that Sona Ram and Pindar took drinks together inside the flourmill of Pindar. [The theory of enmity between the victim and the accused-respondent falls flat on the ground, if they were eating and drinking together]. 6) Otherwise also, the accused-respondent could not be convicted only on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a fragile witness like PW5. Let us assume, for a moment, that PW5 saw the victim and the accused-respondent in the latter’s flourmill. The question is –how did he see it? What was the distance between him and the victim? What was the source of light? Was it a moonlit night or a moonless night? How could he see the victim in the company of accused-respondent in the night? The source of light was not disclosed by this witness. 7) Learned trial court also discussed the evidence of PW1 Smt. Suman, PW2 Smt. Attarkali, PW3 Munesh Kumar, PW4 Rajesh Kumar, PW6 Prem Chand, PW7 Pankaj Kumar, PW8 Suba Ram and other formal witnesses in brief, but did not find substance in the prosecution story. The source of light was not disclosed by this witness. 7) Learned trial court also discussed the evidence of PW1 Smt. Suman, PW2 Smt. Attarkali, PW3 Munesh Kumar, PW4 Rajesh Kumar, PW6 Prem Chand, PW7 Pankaj Kumar, PW8 Suba Ram and other formal witnesses in brief, but did not find substance in the prosecution story. Learned Government Advocate laid emphasis only on the evidence of PW5 Puran Mal before this Court, whose evidence has been discussed by us in the utmost detail in one of the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. Accused-respondent could not be held guilty on the basis of such weak and uncorroborated ‘last seen’ evidence of PW5. 8) We agree with the finding arrived at by learned court below that the prosecution story was not proved on the strength of the evidence of PW5 and other witnesses. We are unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by learned court below. The chain of circumstances in the instant case was not complete and, therefore, there was no option, but to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. 9) The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.