JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- Accused Hari Chand, Pappu and Suresh who were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal code have come forward with the above individual appeals challenging the judgment of the trial court. 2. The First Information Report lodged by PW5 Samita Lakhanpal reads as follows:- On 24.5.2007 at about 3.15 P.M. four masons all working with a contractor who did painting work at her house came to her house saying that they had left on the roof of her house a stair case after completion of their work. They wanted to take away the stair case from the roof of her house. PW5 sent her employee Vishnu Nepali (since deceased) along with the four masons who came to her house to the roof top to take delivery of the stair case. Vishnu Nepali did not return even after ten minutes. She proceeded to the first floor of her house in search of Vishnu Nepali. Those four masons were found returning without any stair case. PW5 asked them about the stair case they proposed to take delivery but the masons informed her that they had already thrown the same to the ground floor from backside of the wall. She thereafter accompanied them to the gate, but those persons vanished within a minute. Vishnu Nepali did not return along with those masons. PW5, under the impression that Vishnu Nepali might have slept in servant quarters proceeded to the servant quarters at about 5.00 P.M. and found Vishnu Nepali dead with a wound in his neck besides a noose of rope around his neck. 3. PW5 suffered a statement before the police. A formal First Information Report was registered based on the above statement suffered by her before PW3 ASI Surender Singh. 4. PW1 Dr. Mukesh Rampal conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Vishnu Nepali on 25.5.2007 and found the following injuries on his dead body:- i). Body of deceased was 5"4 Inch long of nail wearing gray Jeans, gray underwear, yellow white orange stripe T-shirt soaked in blood. There was a white sacred thread across the trunk. Eyes were closed. Post mortem staining was present over the back., Riger mortgage was present. There were congenital heamorrage on lateral side of both eyes. Fingers were flexed. ii). Ligature material:- There was a white plastic rope, about 3/2" long, 0.5 cm. There was a white sacred thread across the trunk. Eyes were closed. Post mortem staining was present over the back., Riger mortgage was present. There were congenital heamorrage on lateral side of both eyes. Fingers were flexed. ii). Ligature material:- There was a white plastic rope, about 3/2" long, 0.5 cm. White, soaked in blood, present around the neck. iii). Ligature mark was dark red in colour, present all around the neck. 10 c.m. Below right ear, 7 c.m. from cink and 7 c.m. From left ear and was present in the middle of neck and .5 c.m in width and also below the hear line over the back completely encircling neck. iv). On Dissection:- Major vessels were congested and soft issue was echhymosed. v). Large incised wound:- It was 12 c.m. Long 6 c.m. white and 6 c.m. deep, present horizontally on right side of neck and crossing to the left from entering in the front of neck. Major vessels were incised on right side and were bleeding. Stomach was full of food and nature of food was not known. 5. In the opinion of PW1 Dr. Mukesh Rampal all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The death had occurred due to asphyxia on account of strangulation and shock and heamorrage which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. 6. PW17 ASI Pancham Singh spoke about the interrogation of the accused Hari Chand, Pappu and Suresh who were taken into custody on production warrant. PW18 ASI Yashpal recorded disclosure statement Ex. PO of Hari Chand. On interrogation the knife Ex.P1 was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by Hari Chand. 7. The accused have come out with a plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C that a false case was foisted on them despite their innocence. 8. The trial court having relied upon the evidence of PW5 Samita Lakhanpal, PW17 who interrogated the accused and recorded their confessions and PW18 ASI Yashpal who recorded the disclosure statement of accused Hari Chand and the recovery of knife at his instance chose to record conviction as against them. 9. There was no representation for accused Hari Chand. Sh. N.S. Panwar, Advocate who was engaged by accused Suresh to prosecute the appeal was nominated as Amicus Curiae to prosecute the appeal preferred by Hari Chand as well. 10. 9. There was no representation for accused Hari Chand. Sh. N.S. Panwar, Advocate who was engaged by accused Suresh to prosecute the appeal was nominated as Amicus Curiae to prosecute the appeal preferred by Hari Chand as well. 10. We heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is submitted by them that the evidence of PW5 does not inspire confidence. No test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW17 ASI Pancham Singh cannot be relied upon as the confessions alleged to have been suffered by the accused are inadmissible in evidence. The recovery of knife from accused Hari Chand does not connect the accused inasmuch as no blood stain was found on the knife. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the charges as against the accused. 11. We heard the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana supporting the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 12. The entire materials on record were thoroughly scanned by us. In our considered view, the case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the star witness namely PW5 Samita Lakhanpal. If the evidence of PW5 does not pass the test of credibility, the whole case of the prosecution would crumble down like a pack of cards. 13. It is very much necessary to completely scrutinise the evidence of PW5. PW5 has categorically admitted that out of four persons who entered into her house only one person by name Munna was already known to her, as he previous worked at her house. She recognized only Munna out of the four persons who entered into her house. She has also deposed categorically that she had never seen the other accused earlier. Even as regards the identity of accused Munna, she wrongly identified accused Hari Chand as Munna in the open court. Such a testimony of PW5 does not inspire confidence. 14. As per the version of PW5 she saw the other three accused only for a minute’s time when they came to her house. No test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. But PW5 comes out with an improvement to the case of the prosecution that the police official brought 5-6 persons and she identified all the four accused involved in this case. No test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. But PW5 comes out with an improvement to the case of the prosecution that the police official brought 5-6 persons and she identified all the four accused involved in this case. It is to be noted that none of the police officials has ever spoken to the fact that PW5 was associated for identification of the accused. PW21 S.I. Mohan Lal of course would speak to the fact that accused Munna later on was identified by PW5. He has also not deposed that the other three accused along with some other persons were produced before PW5 for identification. It is the admitted version of PW5 that yet another construction work was also going on at the rear side of her house. In the above facts and circumstances we find that the evidence of PW5 does not clinchingly establish either the identity of the appellants herein or their involvement in the crime of murder. 15. The confessions recorded by PW17 ASI Pancham Singh on interrogation of accused Hari Chand, Pappu and Suresh cannot be treated as legal evidence. Of course, PW18 ASI Yash Pal had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Hari Chand and recovered a knife Ex. P1 at his instance. Inasmuch as no blood stain were found on the knife, we are afraid the accused could be connected with the crime of murder. 16. In view of the above, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as against these accused. Therefore, the accused Hari Chand, Pappu and Suresh are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court as against them stands reversed and all these three appeals are allowed. All the three accused be set at liberty forthwith, if their custody is not required in connection with any other case.