JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J.: - This shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 16-DB of 2009, 922- DB of 2008, 9-DB of 2009 and 3-DB of 2009. 2. Accused-appellants were convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148 and 450 IPC. Accused-appellant Amarjit Singh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, they have preferred the present appeal. 3. Baljinder Singh son of accused Gulzar Aingh lodged a first information report alleging that Dalbara Singh (since deceased) who was a bachelor, living with his father Gulzar Singh, was done to death by one Sukhwinder Singh and his companions on 21.9.2005 at about 8.30 PM as Sukhwinder Singh had grudge as against Dalbara Singh who knocked away the intention of Sukhwinder Singh to marry Gurpreet Kaur by solemnizing her betrothal with one Sukhbir Singh. 4. Based upon the above statement suffered by Baljinder Singh son of accused Gulzar Singh, a formal first information report was registered by PW-10 SI Raminder Singh. 5. Investigation was directed against the accused-appellants. PW-8 SI Sital Singh arrested the accused and recovered a Spear on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by Amarjit Singh @ Nihang and Swords on the basis of the individual disclosure statements suffered by accused Dalbir Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Balwinder Singh. It is to be noted that no weapon was recovered from Gulzar Singh. 6. PW-6 Dr. Jagdip Singh conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dalbara Singh and found the following injuries on his person :- “1. Incised wound 5 cm x one cm on the thinner eminence of left hand. Fracture of the underlying bone present. 2. Penetrating wound on the lateral aspect of fore-arm, bone deep. 3. Penetrating wound over the left deltoid muscles, 2 cm x one cm bone deep. 4. Penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the anterior abdominal wall, on the right side at the level of the unbliods. 5. Horizontal lacerated wound 6 cm x one cm, 6 cm below the left knee joint on the left tibia. 6. 3. Penetrating wound over the left deltoid muscles, 2 cm x one cm bone deep. 4. Penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the anterior abdominal wall, on the right side at the level of the unbliods. 5. Horizontal lacerated wound 6 cm x one cm, 6 cm below the left knee joint on the left tibia. 6. Incised wound on the sole of the right foot between the first and second toes.” In his opinion, the death had occurred due to penetrating injuries to the abdomen which damaged the vital organs in the abdominal cavity and that resulted in hemorrhage and shock. The injuries were found to be ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. In the statement suffered under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused have submitted that they were innocent but a false case was foisted on them. 8. For the accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 16-DB of 2009, Mr. Karan Jund Mullanpur, Advocate, entered appearance. As there was no one to prosecute the appeal for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 3-DB of 2009, the said counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to prosecute the above criminal appeal on behalf of Balwinder Singh @ Nanna and assist the Court. 9. We heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants in various appeals and the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. 10. PW-2 Harjit Singh, Sarpanch, was examined by the prosecution to establish the alleged extra-judicial confession suffered by accused Gulzar Singh but unfortunately, PW-2 Harjit Singh, Sarpanch, has deposed that Gulzar Singh never met him nor had he suffered any extra-judicial confession before him. The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been suffered by accused Gulzar Singh could not be established by the prosecution. 11. PW-4 Amar Singh, who was also examined to establish one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, turned hostile. No part of the evidence of PW-4 Amar Singh was of any use to buttress the case of the prosecution. 12. PW-7 Anil Kumar who was owner of Pick-up Max vehicle bearing registration No. PB-12-G-4782 which was allegedly used for commission of offence by the accused, also failed to support the case of the prosecution that his Pick-up vehicle was used by the accused for commission of the crime. 13. 12. PW-7 Anil Kumar who was owner of Pick-up Max vehicle bearing registration No. PB-12-G-4782 which was allegedly used for commission of offence by the accused, also failed to support the case of the prosecution that his Pick-up vehicle was used by the accused for commission of the crime. 13. No weapon was recovered from accused Gulzar Singh but the prosecution has come out with a case that on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by Amarjit Singh @ Nihang, a spear was recovered and on the basis of the individual disclosure statements suffered by accused Dalbir Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Balwinder Singh, swords have been recovered. It is to be noted that the above weapons allegedly recovered did not contain any blood stains; therefore, the weapons of offence could not be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for critical examination of the blood stains. The alleged recovery of weapons without any blood stains would not in any way indicate the involvement of the accused in the crime. Mere recovery of the weapons is not sufficient to establish the charge of murder as against the accused-appellants. 14. In our considered view, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution could be established by the prosecution. 15. Trial Court simply relied upon the fact that deceased Dalbara Singh being the unmarried brother of accused Gulzar Singh resided in his house where the occurrence took place. Trial Court also referred to the fact that accused Gulzar Singh never made an attempt to intervene in the attack launched by accused Dalbara Singh to save his brother. The family members of Gulzar Singh also did not make any attempt to take injured Dalbara Singh to the hospital for treatment. 16. The above circumstances relied upon by the trial Court may give rise to some sort of suspicion. But suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. On mere suspicion, without any strong proof to establish the chain of circumstances, an accused cannot be convicted for a heinous crime of murder. 17. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges framed as against all the accused-appellants. They are entitled to acquittal. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court stands reversed and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the all the charges framed against them. Accused Gulzar Singh is on bail. 17. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges framed as against all the accused-appellants. They are entitled to acquittal. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court stands reversed and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the all the charges framed against them. Accused Gulzar Singh is on bail. The bail bond executed by him stand discharged. Accused Balwinder Singh @ Nanna, accused Amarjit Singh @ Nihang. accused Dalbir Singh and accused Gurdeep Singh are undergoing sentence. They be set at liberty forthwith if their custody is not required in connection with any other case. 18. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed.