Yaqoob, J.:— 1. Respondents after facing trial have earned their acquittal as is clear from the Judgment, impugned dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kishtwar. 2. The deceased has lost life in most unfortunate circumstances which initially appeared to be mysterious but later on was noticed to be a murder committed by the accused (respondents) who had developed enmity in view of the deceased having illicit relations first with Bidya Devi, sister of accused Des Raj and later on with Sunita Devi, relative of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Rakesh Kumar accomplice turned to be an approver as such cited as star witness being the only witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution revolves round his testimony. 3. Deceased Ramesh Kumar was noticed to be in an unconscious state in the morning of 12th of March, 1999 by Oma Devi (PW-11) when she went to dump the garbage of her household at Wasser Palmar, Kishtwar into the Krind (Sort of construction used as cattle shed). Her cries attracted the relatives and co-villagers who rushed on spot and shifted him to Hospital at Kishtwar wherefrom he was referred to Government Medical College, Jammu but unfortunately he has succumbed to the injuries enroute. Initially proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated. Enquiry revealed the role of accused (respondents). As a result thereof, case has been registered as FIR No. 115/1999 for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, 34 and 109 RPC. 4. Blind murder was required to be solved. In the process, Rakesh Kumar seem to have been tendered pardon, as a result whereof, he had given the eye account of the occurrence by revealing to the police that respondents-Des Raj, Prem Nath and Lachhmi were on their way to the house of the deceased with intent to eliminate the deceased. They took him along with. While entering into the room of the deceased, accused-Des Raj did shut the mouth of the deceased with a Muflar which was already hanging from a peg in the room of the deceased. Then he and other accused brought the deceased down and kept him on the wall of a Krind, wherefrom he was thrown into the Krind. Then accused -Des Raj had struck head of the deceased with an Iron Rod and left him there to die. Then he and other accused brought the deceased down and kept him on the wall of a Krind, wherefrom he was thrown into the Krind. Then accused -Des Raj had struck head of the deceased with an Iron Rod and left him there to die. Des Raj-accused is stated to have made the confessional statement and at his instance weapon of offence, i.e., Iron rod has been recovered. 5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet (Challan) was presented. The accused were put to trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced as many as 10 witnesses out of 19 listed with the case. 6. PW-Rakesh Kumar who is star witness and is also Nephew of the deceased in the examination-in-chief has stated that in the house of deceased, accused-Des Raj took out a Handkerchief and pressed it into the mouth of the deceased. Accused-Prem Nath caught hold of him by legs then on their asking, he (Rakesh Kumar witness), due to fear, helped them in lifting the body of the deceased. The deceased was brought down and thrown into a Krind. Des Raj gave a stroke on the head of the deceased with an iron rod. Due to threat, he did not disclose the occurrence. Then has stated that he has disclosed the incident to the father of the deceased namely, Bhagat Ram. In cross-examination, he has stated that locals call him 'Latta' as he is an idiot. The accused had incidentally met him. He has neither conspired with the accused nor had he any intention to murder the deceased. He has not even aided or abetted the commission, of offence. He had repeatedly cried on spot and asked the accused, as to why they were killing the accused. Further stated that he was picked up by the Army when let off, he had disclosed the occurrence. He had not seen any Wrist Watch on the day of occurrence. It is incorrect that he has produced the Wrist Watch in the Police Station in presence of Roshan Lal. He as such deposed that he did not depose before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda that he was standing on the wall while as accused Des Raj and Prem Nath had taken the deceased downwards. But had deposed that accused had thrown the deceased down into the Krind from the wall. He as such deposed that he did not depose before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda that he was standing on the wall while as accused Des Raj and Prem Nath had taken the deceased downwards. But had deposed that accused had thrown the deceased down into the Krind from the wall. He (witness) had even jumped into the Krind and begged the accused not to kill the deceased but prior to that deceased had been hit and killed. He had caught the hand of accused Des Raj and asked him not to murder the deceased. 7. The question which emerged for consideration is as to how to value the statement of the approver Rakesh Kumar. Fristly, he is the nephew of the deceased. According to him, he incidentally met the accused. Is it possible that the accused would ask the nephew of the deceased to accompany them when they would have the intention to kill the deceased? Whey he accompanied them? does not inspire confidence. 8. It is settled that conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but that dependent on facts and circumstances. 9. In the instant case, when the witness is the close relative (nephew) of the deceased, his meeting with the accused incidentally then the accused asked him to accompany to the house of the deceased gives rise to suspicion, rendering the testimony unsafe for recording conviction. In the examination-in-chief, he (witness) has stated that he helped the accused in lifting the body of the deceased and throwing the body of the deceased into the Krind due to fear. In cross-examination, he has qualified that he has neither conspired with the accused. He had no intention to kill the deceased. He has not aided or abetted the commission of the offence. 10. The question is as to whether such a person can be termed to be a co-accused so as to deal with him. in accordance with Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of tendering pardon to accomplice is with a view to obtain the evidence and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances regarding which he possesses knowledge as having been a principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. in accordance with Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of tendering pardon to accomplice is with a view to obtain the evidence and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances regarding which he possesses knowledge as having been a principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. If the said witness was not the privy to the commission of offence and has not connived then what was the requirement of declaring him approver he could be an independent witness. As an approver, he has to comply with the condition on which tender was made and in case of deviation, in terms of Section 339 Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor has the power to certify that in his opinion, the person who has accepted such tender has, either willfully concealed anything essential or has given false evidence so has not complied with the conditions, as a result whereof, the accused has to be tried. Public Prosecutor has nowhere certified that the approver has not complied with the conditions nor does he certify that the approver has concealed material circumstance. 11. It appears that for solving the blind murder, nephew of the deceased, i.e., approver Rakesh Kumar has been arrayed as co-accused, then tendered pardon. 12. Nothing has been brought on record by any of the witnesses so as to show that the deceased had any illicit relations with the relatives of the accused. Viewing the testimony of the star witness Rakesh Kumar-approver on the touch-stone of the Rules of Evidence, it shall be totally unsafe to rely on his un-corroborated testimony, more particularly, when he himself has stated that locals called him 'Latta" as he is an idiot. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment titled Ravinder Singh. V. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856 and AIR 1994 SCW 3420 has observed that "where an approver makes a totally exculpatory statement exonerating himself from his involvement into the crime and poses himself only as a spectator or as a chance witness, his testimony should be thrown out". 14. In the instant case, the said star witness-approver has, in so many words, specifically stated that he never intended to commit crime nor he committed the crime. He has gone to the extent of saying that he had requested the accused not to kill the deceased. 15. 14. In the instant case, the said star witness-approver has, in so many words, specifically stated that he never intended to commit crime nor he committed the crime. He has gone to the extent of saying that he had requested the accused not to kill the deceased. 15. The disclosure statement is alleged to have been made by the accused-Des Raj in presence of PW-Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar has been examined as a witness who is brother of the deceased, has stated that in his presence and in presence of Roshan lal, accused Des Raj confessed his guilt and also stated that Iron rod weapon of offence can be recovered. Roshan Lal is also the brother of the deceased, he has stated that the accused Des Raj has confessed to have committed the murder with an iron rod. Both of them have stated that the weapon of offence was recovered. At that time police had not summoned Chowkidar, Lumberdar or any respectable person of the village. At the time of recovery, School was open, teacher Duni Chand was present but was not summoned by police. Why the investigating officer has cited only two brothers as witnesses to the disclosure statement as well as for the recovery of the weapon of offence, gives rise to serious doubt. When admittedly, as per the statement of two brother witnesses, School was open, teacher Duni Chand was available, the Investigating Officer was required to explain the position. The said disclosure statement was authored by PW-18 Harbans lal who has not been produced as witness, as such, has been held back. The statements of two brothers, PWs 5 & 7 were required to be supported at least by the author of the disclosure statement. Non-production and the non-examination of the said witnesses have clothed the accused with the right to claim prejudice. Rightly so, may be by producing the said witness, the credibility of PWs 5 & 7 brothers of the deceased might have been exposed. The authenticity of the disclosure statement and the recovery memo on two counts has become un-reliable, (i) author of the disclosure statement has not been produced (2) no independent witness has been included, as such manipulations cannot be ruled out. 16. The authenticity of the disclosure statement and the recovery memo on two counts has become un-reliable, (i) author of the disclosure statement has not been produced (2) no independent witness has been included, as such manipulations cannot be ruled out. 16. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the judgment delivered by Hob'ble Apex Court in case titled State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002 SC 620. Following portion from Para 19 are relevant, to be quoted: "Significantly all disclosures, discoveries and even arrests have been made in the presence of three specific persons, namely, Budh Ram, dholu ram and Atma Ram - no independent witness could be found in the aforesaid context is it deliberate or is it sheer coincidence this is where the relevance of the passage from Sarkar on Evidence comes on. The Ingenuity devised by the prosecutor knew no bounds Can it be attributed to be sheer coincidence? Without any further consideration of the matter, one thing can. be more or less with certain amount of conclusiveness be stated that these at least create a doubt or suspicion as to whether the same has been tailor-made or not and in the event of there being such a doubt, the benefit must and ought to be transposed to the accused persons..... .... ..... ..... ..... While it is true that legitimacy of interested witnesses cannot be discredited in any way nor termed to be a suspect witness but the evidence before being ascribed to be trustworthy or being capable of creating confidence, the Court has to consider the same upon proper scrutiny...... ' 17. To sum up, the star witness PW-3 Rakesh Kumar (nephew of the deceased) has exposed his credibility, for the reasons detailed hereinabove. The disclosure statement, followed by recovery is shrouded in confusion. The Investigating Officer, Harbans Lal has investigated the case only with the object of showing that he has solved the murder case but cumulative effect of the entire exercise is nothing but failure of the prosecution case. 18. A gruesome murder is committed. A precious life is lost which has been hoodwinked by an unskilled Investigating Officer. Hand of the law has not reached to the criminal which is totally disturbing. 19. It appears that inclusion of Rakesh Kumar (Nephew of the deceased) as co-accused has been made with a design. Lie has no legs to stand upon. A gruesome murder is committed. A precious life is lost which has been hoodwinked by an unskilled Investigating Officer. Hand of the law has not reached to the criminal which is totally disturbing. 19. It appears that inclusion of Rakesh Kumar (Nephew of the deceased) as co-accused has been made with a design. Lie has no legs to stand upon. Said Rakesh Kumar when examined in Court has collapsed as he has gone to the extent of stating that locals called him "Latta" because he is an idiot. Is testimony of such a witness credible and safe? The answer has to be no. Why the investigating Officer has styled him as co-accused is quite un-understandable. If Rakesh Kumar (Nephew of the deceased) had seen the occurrence and claims to be innocent as having not been privy to the crime then what stopped him from informing the police in the next morning of the occurrence. He has tried to cover up the same by stating he was lifted by the Army, again a concoction. Neither he has stated why he was lifted by the Army nor has he stated as to when he was taken and when he was released. There is no other evidence on the record which would suggest that said Rakesh Kumar was lifted by the Army. So suspicion gets strengthened. 20. The Investigating Officer again has committed a big error, may be with some design, i.e., if the accused-Des Raj has made the disclosure statement why he has cited only two brothers of the deceased as witness, why not an independent witness. If the recovery was made at the place where School was open; teacher Duni Chand was available, why he was not cited as a witness. Why he was not bothered to call Chowkidar or Lumberdar or any other respectable of the area to watch the recovery. 21. These are the questions which were required to be answered by the Investigating Officer but he has not been produced as a witness which, in the given circumstances, has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the accused. 22. We have minutely considered the evidence as produced by the prosecution and have also considered the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 22. We have minutely considered the evidence as produced by the prosecution and have also considered the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. We could not find any infirmity instead we find that learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence and the record appropriately in consonance with the law. 23. Judgment impugned does not suffer from any perversity and illegality the same is up-held. Resultantly, the appeal being without merit is dismissed. 24. Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the Trial Court.