JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J The appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Trial No.16 FTC/7 of 2007 decided on 26th June, 2008, whereby he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Further he was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, as borne out from the prosecution evidence, can be stated thus. Jagat Ram deceased was putting up with his two sons PW1 Naresh Kumar and PW8 Harish Kumar in village Dumehar in a newly constructed house with his wife PW13 Roshani Devi, whereas his another son PW9 Roop Chand with his wife in the old house near the house of the accused. PW6 Harish Singh Negi Painter had undertaken the work of newly constructed house of deceased Jagat Ram. (ii) On 25th April, 2007, at about 8 p.m., Harish Singh Painter aforesaid visited the house of the deceased to recover his balance amount to the tune of `.2,000/- qua the work done. Jagat Ram (deceased) told him to wait for a while in his house, in the meantime, he would arrange for the money. On this Jagat Ram went somewhere, but did not return till 9.30 p.m. (iii) According to PW1 Naresh Kumar, when his father did not return, he alongwith his brother went in his search. They also contacted PW5 Seesh Ram who told him that though the deceased had visited him to lend him an amount of `.2,000/-, but he had no money as having spent to purchase medicines for his ailing wife, but told the deceased that he would arrange next day, from the bank and told that the deceased had left his house around 8.45 p.m. (iv) On 26th April, 2007, at about 4.30 p.m., PW1 Naresh Kumar aforesaid lodged his missing report in the Police Station, Arki. (v) On 27th April, 2007 during the search, he noticed the dead-body of his father in a Nallah known as “Sangrah” in village Kot and telephonically informed PW21 SI/SHO Sita Ram, which was jotted down in the daily diary (Ext.PW17/D). (vi) PW21 SI/SHO Sita Ram alongwith PW3 Shri Divesh Kumar, Photographer visited the spot and took photographs Exts.PW3/A-1 to A-20 of the dead-body. During investigation, he also recovered a cigarette lighter Ext.P1 lying in the field of PW2 Mathura Dass, which was identified by PW1 Naresh Kumar belonging to his deceased father. He also took up some grits alongwith blood stained earth, which was lying near a Buel tree. Further while observing the spot, he found a cut piece of human ear lying near Tiamble tree. He also noticed dragging marks in the field possessed by PW2 Mathura Dass. Photographs of all these items were taken. (vii) The lighter was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B and blood stained earth and grits were also made into parcels Ext.P5 and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C. Controlled sample of earth was also taken vide memo Ext.PW1/D in the presence of PW1 Naresh Kumar and others. The specimen of the seal impression “W” used for sealing the samples was also taken on a piece of cloth Ext.PW21/A. After its use, it was handed over to Prabhu Ram. (viii) The police conducted the search of the dead-body. They recovered Cigarette packet (Foursquare) Ext.P2, S-marka Beedi Ext.P3, one Chit Ext.P4 bearing the name of Surender Kumar, which were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/J. Thereafter inquest papers Ext.PW21/ B &C were prepared. Police noticed a sharp edged injury on the right side of the neck left side of the head, left wrist palm and right shoulder of the deceased. (ii) Statement of PW1 Naresh Kumar under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal procedure by PW21 SI Sita Ram was recorded, wherein he expressed suspicion on the accused having committed murder of his father with a motive that the accused was having illicit relations with the wife of his brother Roop Chand, who was living separately in the old house in village Kot, near the house of the accused, for his this misconduct, Jagat Ram had scolded him and advised to mend his ways, but accused threatened him with dire consequences and to do with his life. This fact was told by the deceased to the family members on the same day on arrival. Thus, he did not over-rule the possibility of involvement of the accused alongwith his other companions. (iii) On his above statement Ruqa Ext.PW16/B was sent for the registration of the case, which ultimately culminated into FIR Ext.PW16/A under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Police sent the dead-body of Jagat Ram for autopsy under the supervision of ASI Pradeep Kumar and HHC Nand Lal. POSTMORTEM REPORT & OPINION OF THE DOCTORS (v) PW15 Dr. Sanjeev Prabhakar and Dr. Gopal Ashish Sharma both had conducted the postmortem on 27.4.2007 at 3.45 p.m. The report is Ext.PW15/B. The doctors noticed incised wound present on the face and neck, extending from occipital bone to the right nostril at the upper margin of the wound over the face with clear cut, well defined and averted margin. Wound was triangular in shape 20.5 cm in length, 4 cm in breadth at the base. Right ear lobule was also separated from the right ear. Two contusion marks were found present over abdomen oblique in shape. There were two dark blue contusions over lumbar region. One incised wound with sharp clear cut margin was extending from ring finger to the middle aspect of left wrist joint involving fracture of four metacarpal bone. Size of wound 18 cm in length and 2.5 cm in breadth. On dorsal aspect of left hand there was incised wound with clear cut margins 6 cm in length.5 cm in breadth. Avulsed scalp was present over occipital region in semicircular in shape with clear cut margin 12 cm in length. Incised wound over right hypothenar region of right hand 4 to 5 cm in length was also present. Postmortem hypostases was present on bony margin of back. Multiple abrasions over the scapular promince bilateral was extending upto last rib posteriorly. In the opinion of the doctors, death was due to haemorrhagic shock, which was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. (vi) The viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination, but no poisonous substance or traces were found therein. In the opinion of the doctor, the probable duration of the death and postmortem was 24 to 48 hours and death was instantaneous on receipt of the injuries. (vi) The viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination, but no poisonous substance or traces were found therein. In the opinion of the doctor, the probable duration of the death and postmortem was 24 to 48 hours and death was instantaneous on receipt of the injuries. The clothes of the deceased were preserved and handed over to the police for its examination. DISCOVERIES. (vii) On 27.4.2007 at 7.30 p.m., the accused was arrested. (viii) On 28th April, 2007, the accused while in custody in the presence of PW2 Mathura Dass and PW3 Divesh Kumar made a first disclosure statement Ext.PW2/A showing the spot of the alleged incident from where the dead-body was dragged and also made second disclosure statement that he could get the clothes recovered to which he was wearing at the time of alleged incident. His statement Ext.PW2/C to this effect was recorded, pursuant to which, he got recovered his blood stained clothes i.e. Shirt Ext.P8 and Pants Ext.P9 from behind the Danga below the cowshed in the presence of PW2 Mathura Dass. Thereafter, he is alleged to have made third disclosure statement Ext.PW2/D in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and got recovered a Khukhari Ext.P10 from the heap of cow-dung, which was in the sheath, in the presence of PW2 Mathura Dass, Prabhu Ram, and PW1 Naresh Kumar from the place adjoining to his house. The sketch Ext.PW2/F of the Khukhari was drawn, it was sealed on the spot and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/G. (ix) The Khukhari was shown to PW15 Dr. Sanjeev Prabhakar. Seals were opened before the doctor and sought the opinion whether the injury in question could be caused by the said weapon. The doctor opined its possible use and thereafter it was resealed with seal impression “D”. (x) As per report of the forensic examination, blood group ‘A’ was found on grits, earth, ear, wearing apparels of the accused and Khukhari. The Forensic Science Report is Ext.PW14/A. FIDNINGS OF THE LD. TRIAL COURT. 3. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of only against the accused and the names of other accused persons were deleted for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offence of murder and under the Arms Act as aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offence of murder and under the Arms Act as aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was of denial siplicitor. He also denied any illicit relations with the wife of Shri Roop Chand, as alleged and also having given any threatening to deceased on 25th April, 2007. Further the alleged recoveries as well as disclosure statements pursuant to which recovery were effected were denied. He further stated that his photographs were taken by the police by handing over the Khukhari in his hand. When called upon to enter into his defence, he examined DW1 Shri L.C. Kaushal, a legal aid counsel provided to him on 28th April, 2007 when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Arki at the time of seeking remand of the accused. According to him, the accused was produced in the Court in the post lunch session on the day aforesaid for police remand. 5. The learned trial Court disbelieved the explanation given by the accused while relying upon the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution qua motive to commit crime and recoveries, pursuant to his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT. 6. Shri Anup Chitkara, learned Advocate, duly assisted by Shri Shivendera Singh, learned Advocate submitted that the whole case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence, which is not of a conclusive nature and tendency. He also pointed out that on 28.4.2007, the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for police remand by moving an application Ext.DA wherein there is only a reference to one disclosure statement with respect to pointing out the place of alleged occurrence and there was no reference to the disclosure statements qua other recoveries particularly about Khukhari which is alleged to have been a weapon of the offence and his alleged clothes. He also pointed out that as per statement of PW1 Naresh Kumar and PW2 Mathura Dass as well as PW3 Divesh Kumar, who were also cited as recovery witnesses, all these recoveries were made in the pre-lunch session. He also pointed out that as per statement of PW1 Naresh Kumar and PW2 Mathura Dass as well as PW3 Divesh Kumar, who were also cited as recovery witnesses, all these recoveries were made in the pre-lunch session. Had these recoveries been effected as stated by the prosecution witnesses, then this fact should have come in the application for remand Ext.DA moved by the police for remand, but there was only a reference with respect to one disclosure statement for pointing out of the spot of alleged incident which was otherwise known to police. The motive in the instant case is not proved and absolutely weak and alleged recovery in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be relied upon as all the witnesses are either stock witnesses or closely related and no independent person was associated. Their statements are tainted, which fact escaped the notice of the learned trial Court and caused miscarriage of justice. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that PW1 Naresh Kumar, PW8 Harish Kumar, PW10 Narinder Kumar, grandson of the deceased and son of Shri Roop Chand as well as and PW11 Pawan Kumar have stated about the motive of the alleged crime by the accused. It has also been submitted that the aforesaid recoveries of the incriminating substances were effected after the order Ext.PA was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby remand of 10 days i.e. upto 7.5.2007 was accorded by the Court. Therefore, the alleged recoveries connect the accused with the alleged offence and the Khukhari and the clothes of accused were having the blood group of the deceased. OUR FINDINGS. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have reassessed the evidence on record. 9. Admittedly, the death of Jagat Ram is homicidal. It is a case of a blind murder. The accused as already stated above was convicted on the basis of two circumstances i.e. the motive for committing the crime and secondly the recoveries of his clothes and the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. 9. Admittedly, the death of Jagat Ram is homicidal. It is a case of a blind murder. The accused as already stated above was convicted on the basis of two circumstances i.e. the motive for committing the crime and secondly the recoveries of his clothes and the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Before analyzing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that it must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. 11. The inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and shown to have been closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. The constant view of the Supreme Court till date is that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:- “ (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 13. In this behalf, a reference can also be made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622 , which set out five golden principles; which are constantly reiterated and followed. 14. It is also equally well established by now that the motive as alleged could be used only as a circumstance. It can not prove or disprove the case in the fact situation. In fact the “motive” is something which prompts a man to form an intention and “knowledge” is an awareness of the consequences of the act. “Motive” is that which makes a man to do a particular act. There can be no action without a motive, which must exist for every voluntary act. Previous threats, previous litigations, or previous altercations and bad relations between the parties are admitted to show motive. 15. When there is direct evidence about murder, “motive” looses its significance, but still then motive is relevant to know the intention of the culprit. In criminal trial, the question of motive is of very little importance when there is direct and reliable evidence to prove crime. Its fact in a case of circumstantial evidence it explains, which otherwise remained unexplained. 16. In criminal trial, the question of motive is of very little importance when there is direct and reliable evidence to prove crime. Its fact in a case of circumstantial evidence it explains, which otherwise remained unexplained. 16. In the instant case to explain “motive”, PW10 Narinder Kumar, (child) son of PW9 Roop Chand was examined and he stated that the accused had been meeting his mother in absence of his father Roop Chand and on his visit, the accused used to give toffee and tell him to go away. He had disclosed this fact to his father and the accused is stated to have visited his School and slapped him as to why he disclosed this fact to his father, but pertinently in cross-examination, he admitted that his father and his uncle had told him as to what statement he has to make in the Court on the date of his examination. 17. Admittedly, after making aforesaid allegations, the wife of Roop Chand has started living with her parents. According to the prosecution, when the deceased had warned the accused, he had threatened him with dire consequences and even on 25th April, 2007, according to PW1 Naresh Kumar and his brother PW8 Harish Kumar, their deceased father had revealed that the accused had threatened him. The accused was already married two months prior to the murder of the Jagat Ram and motive, which is alleged as aforesaid appears to be inadequate for committing the crime, but prosecution may prove the motive for criminal if it helps to establish their case in the matter of circumstantial evidence, but they are not legally bound to prove motive as “a motiveless crime is still a crime”. As already stated above, proof of motive or ill-will is not necessary to sustain conviction when there is clear evidence against the accused. In nut-shell, the existence and non-existence of motive is not relevant when the direct or the circumstantial evidence is credible and connects the accused with the crime. Therefore, a great care is required to evaluate the circumstantial evidence if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Therefore, we proceed to examine the other circumstances on which the prosecution was relied upon, to see him for motive is relevant and whether the accused stands connected with the offence charged. 18. Therefore, we proceed to examine the other circumstances on which the prosecution was relied upon, to see him for motive is relevant and whether the accused stands connected with the offence charged. 18. The Supreme Court in Thima v. The State of Mysore [ 1970 (2) SCC 105 ] bounded a caution that once a fact is discovered from other sources there can not be fresh discovery even if relevant information is extracted from the accused and Courts have to be watchful against the ingenuity of the investigating officer in this respect so that the protection afforded by the wholesome provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is not whittled down by the mere manipulation of the record of case diary. It would, in the circumstances be somewhat unsafe to rely on this information for proving the guilt of the accused. 19. In the instant case, though the circumstantial evidence put-forth may rests on strong reasons to suspect the accused, but it is well established that every suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. [2002 AIR (SC) 3206 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1718] observed in para-8 as under:- “8. Realities of truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record.” 20. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it becomes very necessary whether the prosecution has been able to prove the recoveries from the accused pursuant to the statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act alleged to have been recorded by the police. 21. According to PW21 SI/SHO Sita Ram, the Investigating Officer, the accused was arrested on 27.4.2007 and he made a disclosure statement Ext.PW2/A on 28.4.2007 in the presence of PW3 Divesh Kumar and PW2 Mathura Dass with respect to point out the place from where he had dragged the dead-body. Thereafter he led the police to the spot and got identified the same place from where dead-body was recovered and a memo Ext.PW2/B was prepared to this effect in the presence of PW2 Mathura Dass and Prabhu Ram (not examined). As already stated above before the arrest of the accused, the police had also recovered the dead-body and knew about the place which was identified by the accused near his house in consequence of the information received from the accused, therefore, the question of discovery of the place from where the dead body was dragged and found thereafter cannot arise. 22. The Supreme Court in Vijender v. State of Delhi [ (1997) 6 SCC 171 ] held that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if an information given by the accused leads to its discovery of a fact which is the direct outcome of such information then only it would be evidence but when the fact has already been discovered as in the instant case, evidence can not be led in respect thereof. 23. 23. There is another discovery statement Ext.PW2/C made in the presence of PW2 Mathura Dass and PW3 Divesh Kumar on the same day with respect to the recovery of his wearing apparels worn by him on the day of alleged incident, which were got recovered simultaneously followed by another statement Ext.PW2/D regarding recovery of weapon of offence and got recovered his wearing blood stained apparels from near his cow-shed from behind the Wall and vide memo Ext.PW2/E and Khukhari Ext.P10 from the cow dung vide memo Ext.PW2/G. 24. Now the sequence in which the aforesaid recoveries were made are stated by PW2 Mathura Dass, who was already taken for interrogation being a suspect in the instant case by police on 27.4.2007 and was detained for the night as stated by him before arrival of the accused in the Police Station and his arrest. The disclosure statement aforesaid was made by the accused at about 8/9 a.m. on 28.4.2007 and thereafter they proceeded to the spot at about 10/11 a.m. and effected the recoveries of the weapon of offence and clothes etc. around 12 noon. Thereafter, he alongwith police party left the spot about 2 or 2.30 p.m. He accompanied the police party upto the Police Station, thereafter returned to his house. Since he forgot his Mobile phone in the Police Station, he again came there and collected his phone. Pertinently, he also admitted that police told him that if he would not make a statement and become the witness, they will implicate him as an accused in the instant case. Thus his independent character goes of. 25. PW3 Divesh Kumar is another witness of the recovery stated that he as well as police both were away to the place where the dead-body was lying and the blood stains were found present there on 27.4.2007 itself. He also stated that he alongwith police party reached the place of alleged recovery around 11/11.30 a.m. This witness was a photographer and admitted to have appeared as a witness of the police in about 25 cases, most of them were accidental cases. 26. Though Naresh Kumar (PW1) has not been cited as a recovery witness, but stated to have made the recovery pursuant to the statement of the accused. In cross-examination, he could not tell at what time, police had left for the spot on 28.4.2007. 26. Though Naresh Kumar (PW1) has not been cited as a recovery witness, but stated to have made the recovery pursuant to the statement of the accused. In cross-examination, he could not tell at what time, police had left for the spot on 28.4.2007. He also did not accompany the police back to the Police Station. He stated that PW2 Mathura Dass was already with the police, whereas, he and Prabhu Ram were called from their houses. Prabbu Ram was not examined in this case. 27. From the facts, it appears that the recovery witnesses examined were not the independent witnesses, but they were the selected persons by the police. It becomes difficult to appreciate how the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW21 SI Sita Ram could have made the discovery evidence reliable. They cannot be said to be independent witnesses of the locality, who were allegedly associated with the preparation of the disclosure and recovery witnesses despite the fact that there were number of houses nearby in the village where the Khukhari Ext.P10 was alleged to have been recovered. 28. Having scrutinized the evidence, we are of the view that the learned trial Court was not right in convicting the accused on the strength of the aforesaid evidence. The evidence on record throws a great suspicion on the alleged recovery, which is the foundation of the case against the accused. 29. The above contradictions and legal position apart, we have also noticed a glaring defect, which shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case. 30. According to the recovery witnesses, the entire recovery was effected between 11 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 28.4.2007. DW-1 L.C. Kaushal, who was a legal-aid counsel and representing the accused stated that the accused was produced after lunch before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours, on 28.4.2007 for police remand. The recovery witnesses stated that all these recoveries were effected before 12.30 p.m. on that very day. The application for remand is Ext.DA, which does not make any reference with respect to the disclosure statement and recoveries alleged to have been effected i.e. qua wearing apparels of the accused and the weapon of offence nor it does find mention in the order dated 28.4.2007 Ext. PA passed by the Judicial Magistrate on this application. The application for remand is Ext.DA, which does not make any reference with respect to the disclosure statement and recoveries alleged to have been effected i.e. qua wearing apparels of the accused and the weapon of offence nor it does find mention in the order dated 28.4.2007 Ext. PA passed by the Judicial Magistrate on this application. Significantly, the request of the police for police remand was accepted on the ground that the police is yet to recover the weapon of offence and they intended to find out as to who was another accused for committing murder. Learned Judicial Magistrate had also given a reference that he had gone to the case diary with due care and caution and specifically stated the recovery of the weapon is yet to be made. Thus, the accused was remanded to the police custody till 7.5.2007. This glaring contradiction with respect to the recovery goes to the root of the case. Thus, in our opinion, the disclosure statement as well as recovery pursuant thereto both are unreliable. Accordingly, neither the motive nor discoveries aforesaid relied upon by the prosecution proves a case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION. 31. For the aforementioned reasons, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 32. The accused is in jail, serving out the sentence. He be released forthwith, if not required in any case. The Registry of this Court is directed to issue release warrant in conformity with this judgment.