JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - Three persons, namely, Tarlok Singh son of Amar Singh, Anokh Singh son of Amar Singh and Harnam Singh @ Jasbir Singh son of Bhagwan Dass, were tried in a case registered vide FIR No.34 dated 4.3.2006 at Police Station City Ferozepur under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and were convicted on 12.2.2009 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced vide order dated 17.2.2009 for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20000/- each under Section 302 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. They were also sentenced for seven years imprisonment and fine of 5000/- each under Section 201 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months each. 2. Tarlok Singh and Anokh Singh, who happens to be brothers, have filed criminal appeal No.232-DB of 2009, Harnam Singh has filed criminal appeal No.181-DB of 2009 and Ranjeet Singh (complainant) has filed criminal revision No.1665 of 2009 for enhancement of sentence. 3. The appeals and the revision petition are being disposed of together as they arise from the common order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. 4. On the statement of Ranjeet Singh (PW7), FIR (EX.P9/B) was recorded in which he alleged that he is working as a granthi in a Gurudwara, his son Dildar Singh (deceased) aged 23/24 years was serving at Sadiq, on a petrol-pump of Reliance and was in love with Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi (deceased) daughter of Tarlok Singh, mistri (appellant No.1). When he came to know about the love affair of his son Dildar Singh and Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, he asked his son to stop it and was even got married to someone else but Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi did not stop calling his son Dildar Singh on telephone. On 25.2.2006, his son went to his duty at the petrol-pump from his house but did not return home at night. On enquiry, in the morning, at the petrol-pump, he was told that after taking dinner Dildar Singh went to Ferozepur city at 11.00 at night. On 25.2.2006, his son went to his duty at the petrol-pump from his house but did not return home at night. On enquiry, in the morning, at the petrol-pump, he was told that after taking dinner Dildar Singh went to Ferozepur city at 11.00 at night. After reaching Ferozepur City, he enquired about Dildar Singh from the house of Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1), who could not give proper reply rather his family was found confused and asked that their daughter Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi is also untraceable from their house from the night of Shivratri and have also lodged a report in Police Station Ferozepur in this regard. PW7 recorded his suspicion that family members of Tarlok Singh have committed murder of his son and destroyed his dead body. However, he continued his search in which he found the dead body of Dildar Singh from Gang canal near village Azam Shah. He also suspected that Tarlok Singh might have also committed the murder of his daughter Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi and thrown her dead body in canal in order to destroy the evidence. 5. The dead body of Dildar Singh was recovered on 5.3.2006 and autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors comprising Dr. P.R. Bhandu, Dr. Hans Raj and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Medical Officers of Civil Hospital, Fazilka. While appearing as PW1 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma has opined that the dead body of the deceased (Dildar Singh) was tied with string. His hands, legs and neck were tied in such a way that body was lying in a folded position. Knees were touching the chest and neck was also flexed on the chest and chin was touching the knees. There were four rounds of stings around the neck and on dissection of skull, frontal temporal bone of right side of skull bore fracture lines and dark coloured blood was present around the fractured lines. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, the probable time between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 7- 8 days. 6. Dead body of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was recovered on 9.3.2006. The postmortem was conducted on 9.3.2006 by Dr. Aman Sood (PW5), who opined that the death was due to throttling or drowning. 6. Dead body of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was recovered on 9.3.2006. The postmortem was conducted on 9.3.2006 by Dr. Aman Sood (PW5), who opined that the death was due to throttling or drowning. He could not find any injury or ligature mark over the neck and admitted that in case of drowning, there has to be water in the lungs and stomach of the deceased, which was not detected. In the chemical examination (Ex.P49), no poison was detected in the viscera of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi. 7. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Ajmer Singh, has appeared as PW14, who has stated that Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) was arrested on 6.3.2006 and made a disclosure statement on 7.3.2006 & 8.3.2006. Harnam Singh was arrested on 29.3.2006 and made a disclosure statement (Ex.P44). 8. The disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh (Ex.P4) is allegedly made before Seetal Singh (PW3), recovery of wooden piece, piece of rope (Ex.P5) and scooter Eterno Honda (Ex.P6) before Kala Singh (PW4) 9. The prosecution has examined Gurpreet Singh PW2 (witness of the last seen), Seetal Singh PW3 (witness of the disclosure statement), Kala Singh PW4 (witness of the recoveries), Surjit Singh PW6 (witness of extrajudicial confession), Ranjeet Singh PW7 (complainant), Lakhbir Singh PW8 and PW10 Gurpal Singh (owner of the Fiat car). Besides, Constable Balwant Singh PW9, Krishan Lal Sondhi PW12, ASI Iqbal Khan PW13, HC Mathias Masih PW 15, HC Dinesh Kumar PW16 and HC Karamjit Singh PW17. 10. All the incriminating evidence was put to all the three accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) has stated that he has been falsely implicated, Anokh Singh (appellant No.2) has stated that he has been implicated being brother of Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) and Harnam Singh has stated that his car was out of order and was parked outside on the road which has been taken away by the police for falsely implicating him in this case. 11. In the defence, ASI Satnam Singh has been examined as DW1. 12. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence in which dead body of Dildar Singh was recovered on 5.3.2006 i.e., after 7-8 days of the occurrence whereas the dead body of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was recovered on 9.3.2006. 11. In the defence, ASI Satnam Singh has been examined as DW1. 12. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence in which dead body of Dildar Singh was recovered on 5.3.2006 i.e., after 7-8 days of the occurrence whereas the dead body of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was recovered on 9.3.2006. It is submitted that the material witness of the prosecution namely, Gurpreet Singh PW2 (alleged witness of the last seen), Seetal Singh PW3 (alleged witness of the disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh and recovery) and Surjit Singh PW6 (witness of extra-judicial confession by Tarlok Singh) have already turned hostile. He further submits that there are two more witnesses, namely Kala Singh (PW4), who was allegedly associated at the time of recoveries but he is a related witness being the brother-in-law (sala) of Dildar Singh (deceased) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8), who alleged to have seen Tarlok Singh and Anokh Singh putting gunny bags in the dickey of Fiat car on 26.2.2006 at 4.00 A.M. but again he is related to the complainant being nephew as the complainant Ranjeet Singh (PW7) is his ‘fufad’ (father’s sister husband). 13. It is argued that the statement of Kala Singh (PW4) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8) cannot be relied upon being related witnesses, who had all the interest in implicating the appellants in the false case. According to Kala Singh (PW4), a wooden piece of 3½ feet in length and a rope 5 feet in length was recovered from Eterno Honda scooter. It has been admitted by S.I. Ajmer Singh (PW14) that no blood was found on the wooden piece which has been allegedly used for causing injury to Dildar Singh on his head before he was tied down by the rope and since the rope piece is an ordinary material which is available everywhere, could have been available in the house of the appellants, who happened to be mistri (Carpenter). In regard to Lakhbir Singh (PW8), it is submitted that his statement cannot be believed because on 26.2.2006, he alleged to have seen Tarlok Singh and Anokh Singh, bringing something in a gunny bag which was being put in the dickey of Fiat old model car. In regard to Lakhbir Singh (PW8), it is submitted that his statement cannot be believed because on 26.2.2006, he alleged to have seen Tarlok Singh and Anokh Singh, bringing something in a gunny bag which was being put in the dickey of Fiat old model car. He was allegedly present at the spot at 4.00 A.M. in the morning and disclosed this fact on 5.3.2006 after reading about the murder of Dildar Singh and Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi in the newspaper. It is submitted that this witness cannot be believed as his statement runs contrary to the disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh (Ex.P4), in which he had stated that on 25/26.2.2006 at night time after committing murder of Dildar Singh, he told all the facts to his brother Anokh Singh and Baba Harnam Dass @ Nama and after tying the dead body with rope and putting into the Bori (gunny bag), the dead body was put in the dickey of Fiat car and was thrown in the Gang canal passing near village Sher Khan. Lateron, on the same day, i.e. 26.2.2006, in the evening, he took his daughter Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi on scooter Eterno No.PB-49-971 telling her that she is being taken to Makhu to stay with her Bhua (father’s sister) but when his scooter reached Sher Khan link road, village Tootwala, he stopped the scooter and caught Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi (deceased) from arms from back side and pushed her into the canal. It is submitted that if dead body of Dildar Singh was disposed of by the appellants at night and thereafter in the evening on the same day Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was taken on scooter to Makhu and was also thrown into canal, how could Lakhbir Singh (PW8) had witnessed Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) and Anokh Singh (appellant No.2) putting a gunny bag in the dickey of the car at 4.00 A.M. on 26.2.2006. It is also submitted that no evidence has been brought on record about the alleged love affair of both the deceased. PW7 Ranjit Singh (complainant) has stated that even after marriage, Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi used to call Dildar Singh (deceased) but no phone call details are produced. 14. It is also submitted that no evidence has been brought on record about the alleged love affair of both the deceased. PW7 Ranjit Singh (complainant) has stated that even after marriage, Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi used to call Dildar Singh (deceased) but no phone call details are produced. 14. It is also submitted that Ranjit Singh (PW7) has stated in his cross-examination that he had not gone to the police till the dead body of his son Dildar Singh was recovered, which actually was recovered on 5.3.2006 whereas DW1 ASI Satnam Singh has stated that Ranjit Singh (PW7), Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) and other respectable persons came to Police Station, Ferozepur and gave him Photostat copy of the application dated 28.2.2006 (EX.DX and Ex.DY). 15. In Ex.DX dated 28.2.2006, Ranjit Singh (PW7) did not raise any suspicion against anyone much less the appellants about the missing of his son Dildar Singh. 16. Counsel for the State has argued that the recovery of both Dildar Singh and Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi from the Gang canal clearly indicates that they have been put to death by the appellants in order to save their honour. It is submitted that even if the witness of the last seen (PW2), witness of the disclosure statement (PW3) and witness of the extra-judicial confession (PW6) have turned hostile, the statement of Kala Singh (PW4), Ranjit Singh (PW7) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8) cannot be disbelieved even if Kala Singh (PW4) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8) are closely related to Ranjit Singh (PW7). She further submits that the dead body of Dildar Singh has been recovered in such a manner which suggest that it was put in a gunny bag as his hands and feets were tied. She also submits that recovery of wooden piece and rope has been effected on the disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8) had seen Tarlok Singh and Anokh Singh putting gunny bag in the dickey of the Fiat car. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have persued the record. 18. It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. Gurpreet Singh (PW2), who alleged to have last seen Dildar Singh and Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, together, has turned hostile. The disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh (Ex.P4) is stated to have been witnessed by Seetal Singh (PW3), who has also turned hostile. 18. It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. Gurpreet Singh (PW2), who alleged to have last seen Dildar Singh and Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, together, has turned hostile. The disclosure statement of Tarlok Singh (Ex.P4) is stated to have been witnessed by Seetal Singh (PW3), who has also turned hostile. The extra-judicial confession is stated to have been made by Tarlok Singh before Surjit Singh, Ex. Sarpanch (PW6), who has also turned hostile. 19. The prosecution is left with evidence of Kala Singh (PW4) and Lakhbir Singh (PW8). Kala Singh (PW4) is the real brother-in-law of Dildar Singh whereas Lakhbir Singh (PW8) is the nephew of Ranjit Singh (PW7). Lakhbir Singh (PW8) is stated to have seen Tarlok and Anokh Singh putting gunny bag in dickey of Fiat car, which is used in the crime, on 26.2.2006 at 4.00 A.M. when he was passing through Sirki Bazar inside Bagdadi Gate, Ferozepur City in order to catch the train for Ludhiana, who was allegedly a chance witness and did not disclose this fact till 5.3.2006 i.e. for about 9 days although he allegedly came back from Ludhiana on 26.2.2006. He has also admitted that his village Mahalam is on the opposite side from Ferozepur and there is a bus route between his village and Ludhiana. His statement is contrary to the disclosure statement (Ex.P4) of Tarlok Singh because in that statement Tarlok Singh had alleged that on 25/26.2.2006 at night time after committing the murder of Dildar Singh, he threw his dead body in the canal. Lateron, on the same day, on 26.2.2006 in the evening, he took his daughter Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, on the pretext of taking her to Makhu, to the Gang canal and pushed her alive in water. If the dead body was disposed of at night, how come Lakhbir Singh (PW8) had seen the appellants putting the gunny bag in the dickey of the Fiat car in the morning and if Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was thrown in the canal alive then how come there was no water either in her lungs or stomach about which PW5 has stated that in case of drowning of alive person, there has to be water in the lungs and stomach, which was not detected in the present case. Therefore, the statement of Lakhbir Singh (PW8) is not worthy of credence. Therefore, the statement of Lakhbir Singh (PW8) is not worthy of credence. Insofar as Kala Singh (PW4) is concerned, he is the witness to the recoveries. Once the disclosure statement (Ex.P4) of Tarlok Singh is not supported by Seetal Singh (PW3), in which he had disclosed the manner in which murder has been committed and the wooden piece allegedly used in causing injury on the head of the deceased Dildar Singh has not been found stained with blood, the wooden piece being available in the house of Tarlok Singh (appellant No.1) being a Carpenter cannot be made a conclusive piece of evidence to complete the chain of the alleged crime to hold that the prosecution case is beyond any suspicion or doubt. Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record either oral or documentary to prove that both the deceased had an affair even after the marriage of Dildar Singh (deceased) and there was thus no motive for the appellants to commit the murder and destroy evidence. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that it is a case where story of the prosecution is doubtful as there is only suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in order to convict and sentence the appellants. Hence, both the appeals are hereby allowed and the appellants are acquitted. The appellant No.1 being in custody is directed to be released forthwith unless involved in some other case. 21. In so far as the revision petition is concerned, since the appeals are allowed and the appellants are acquitted, therefore, the revision petition to enhance the sentence of the appellants has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------