JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 05.04.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 302 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.05.2005, Sarabjit Singh, SHO, Police Station City Ferozepur along with other police officials was on patrol duty and when he reached near the gate of Baghi Hospital, Nirmal Kumar got recorded his statement to him outside the gate of the hospital. In the statement Nirmal Kumar complainant, stated that his elder sister namely Anita was married with Raj Kumar about 15 years back. On that day, he along with his brother Rajinder Kumar came to see Raj Kumar (sister’s husband) on his shop situated in Dakkhana Wali Gali, Ferozepur City. At about 9.15 P.M., he along with his brother Rajinder Kumar were sitting on the chairs and Raj Kumar was sitting on small table (stool) and were talking with each other. In the meantime, Vijay Kumar, younger brother of Raj Kumar came with Dah in his hand. He gave Dah blow straight on the head of Raj Kumar as soon as he reached there. Raj Kumar fell down after receiving the blow. They both tried to got up, in the meantime, accused hit Raj Kumar on his chest towards left side, on the shoulder and left side of his body. They raised noise. Accused Vijay Kumar ran away from the place of occurrence along with his weapon. After arranging a vehicle, they took Raj Kumar to Baghi Hospital and when they reached outside the main gate, Raj Kumar died. The grudge of the accused is that Raj Kumar was running a shop to die head-wears for women (chunies). Vijay Kumar did not cooperate him at the shop and remain idle and use to demand money. Raj Kumar had been giving subsistence money to him for sometime but he demanded more money. For this reason, Vijay Kumar accused has committed the murder of Raj Kumar (sister’s husband of the complainant). The statement of Nirmal Kumar was recorded by Sarabjit Singh, SHO, P.S. City Ferozepur at 11.15 P.M. on 05.05.2005. Raj Kumar had been giving subsistence money to him for sometime but he demanded more money. For this reason, Vijay Kumar accused has committed the murder of Raj Kumar (sister’s husband of the complainant). The statement of Nirmal Kumar was recorded by Sarabjit Singh, SHO, P.S. City Ferozepur at 11.15 P.M. on 05.05.2005. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex.P7 and recorded statements of the witnesses. He sent the dead body for post-mortem to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur through Head Constable Darshan Kumar and Head Constable Mulkh Raj. He took Nirmal Kumar with him and police party went to the spot i.e. on the shop of Raj Kumar. On the way Constable sent with ruqa had met them. When they reached at the shop, it was open and floor of the shop was washed. Two chairs were lying inside the shop and one small table (stool) was also lying there. There were so many chunies. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex.P9 at the demarcation of Nirmal Kumar-complainant. Investigation was conducted. The investigation of the case was further entrusted on 29.05.2005 to another Inspector Sarabjit Singh No.726, PAP, SHO, P.S. City Ferozepur. He arrested accused Vijay Kumar in this case. On interrogation he made disclosure statement, who in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered weapon of offence, which was taken into police possession in a sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. 3. Finding prima facie case, the appellant was chargesheeted under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Gian Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Raj Kumar on 06.05.2005 and found following injuries:- “1. An incised wound 11.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the left pareito occipital area, 8 cm from left pinna. 2. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of middle scapular region. Margins were everted and punctured wound. 3. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the back and upper part of left chest. Margins were everted and punctured. 4. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x punctured on the front and upper part of left shoulder joint. Margins were everted. Margins were everted and punctured wound. 3. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the back and upper part of left chest. Margins were everted and punctured. 4. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x punctured on the front and upper part of left shoulder joint. Margins were everted. 5. An incised punctured wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of chest front and medial side of nipple and at the level of nipple. Margins were everted. 6. An incised punctured wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the front and upper part of left side of abdomen. Margins were everted.” 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death in this case was due to injury to vital organ i.e. heart, shock and haemorrhage, which is ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-2 Head Constable Baljinder Singh and PW-3 Constable Balbir Singh, are formal witnesses, tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively. PW-4 Krishan Lal Draftsman, who mainly deposed regarding preparing scaled site plan. PW-5 Nirmal Kumar, who is complainant, deposed as per the prosecution version. PW-6 Rajinder Kumar, who is the brother of complainant, also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-7 Inspector Sarabjit Singh, who mainly deposed regarding initial investigation of the case. PW-8 Constable Subeg Singh, is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P11. PW-9 Head Constable Darshan Kumar, who mainly deposed regarding getting conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Kumar. PW-10 Inspector Sarabjit Singh No.726, PAP, who mainly deposed regarding arrest of the accused and the disclosure statement made by the accused and recovery of Dah by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Learned Public Prosecutor after tendering into evidence FSL report, closed the evidence. 6. At the close of the evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself innocent. He also stated in his statement that lower portion of Anita wife of Raj Kumar deceased was damaged and she was using wheel chair to move about and as such Raj Kumar did not like her. He further stated that Raj Kumar deceased had illicit relations with maid-servant working in their house. He also stated in his statement that lower portion of Anita wife of Raj Kumar deceased was damaged and she was using wheel chair to move about and as such Raj Kumar did not like her. He further stated that Raj Kumar deceased had illicit relations with maid-servant working in their house. Raj Kumar deceased even stopped paying house-hold expenses to Anita and as such there were strained relations between them. Anita used to complaint to her brothers about the acts, conduct and behaviour of Raj Kumar towards her. Brothers of Anita used to quarrel with Raj Kumar and were pressing and threatening him to mend his behaviour. Raj Kumar took Rs.4 lacs as loan from them for the purchase of the shop and in spite of repeated requests and demands by the brothers of Anita, he refused to pay back the said amount. He further stated that brothers of Anita might have murdered Raj Kumar and after due consultations, the accused has been falsely implicated, so that Anita may be able to inherit the property left by Raj Kumar as well as by his father. 7. In defence, accused examined DW-1 Pawan Kumar, Assistant Record Keeper, State Bank of India, Ferozepur, who mainly deposed that FDR dated 29.04.2004 for an amount of Rs.33,000/- is lying in the bank in the name of Vijay Kumar Sethi and Daulat Ram. DW-2 Om Parkash Khurana, Record Keeper, State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Ferozepur City, who mainly deposed that FDR dated 5.11.2005 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, which was again renewed on 30.10.2005, is still lying pending in the bank. He further stated that if one of the account holder dies, the other is entitled to get the amount. DW-3 Satnam Singh, who mainly deposed that Inspector Sarabjit Singh deposited one parcel containing apparels of deceased on 06.05.2005 and on 01.06.2005, Inspector Sarabjit Singh deposited one Dah, which was not sealed nor in a parcel, as per entry. 8. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant Vijay Kumar was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 9. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the present case, place of occurrence is not established. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Nirmal Kumar complainant. No blood-stained article or earth was found at the place of occurrence. 9. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the present case, place of occurrence is not established. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Nirmal Kumar complainant. No blood-stained article or earth was found at the place of occurrence. He further contended that PW-5 Nirmal Kumar complainant and his brother PW-6 Rajinder Kumar have mainly deposed regarding three injuries whereas as per post-mortem examination, there are six injuries on the person of the deceased. This discrepancy is a material discrepancy which goes to the root of the case and shows that both these PWs were not present at the spot. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that both these PWs were close relatives of the deceased but as per evidence on record, they did not interfere to save Raj Kumar deceased from the accused specially when he was not armed with any fire arm weapon. He further contended that no person from the neighbourhood was examined. No servant in the shop was examined. Neither number of the car was given nor the name of owner of the car was told in which the deceased was shifted to hospital. No blood was taken from the car. All these facts and conduct of the witnesses shows that they have not seen the occurrence and occurrence has not taken place as stated by PW-5 Nirmal Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that there is no explanation why the matter was not reported to the police immediately. Occurrence took place at 9.15 P.M. and the police reached at the spot by chance and as per the Investigating Officer, he heard weeping noise and he then recorded the statement of Nirmal Kumar-complainant. Even at that time, Nirmal Kumar-complainant did not think it proper to report the matter to the police, rather he was weeping there. Police station was just at the distance of 500 mtrs and no explanation is given why the information was not given to the police. He further contended that Dah was not sealed nor parcel was prepared. PWs are discrepant as PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant says that blood-stained earth was taken at 6.00 A.M. whereas as per Investigating Officer, he visited the spot immediately and found the shop washed and the person who was sent with the ruqa met in the way. He further contended that Dah was not sealed nor parcel was prepared. PWs are discrepant as PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant says that blood-stained earth was taken at 6.00 A.M. whereas as per Investigating Officer, he visited the spot immediately and found the shop washed and the person who was sent with the ruqa met in the way. The washing of the shop after the occurrence also creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. Even the weapon of offence was not sent to FSL to know whether it was blood-stained or not. Therefore, he argued that the weapon of offence also cannot be connected to the occurrence. Hence he argued that appeal be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State argued that prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. PW-5 Nirmal Kumar complainant and PW-6 Rajinder Kkumar have seen the occurrence and they have deposed consistently as per prosecution version. The oral statements are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case and further recovery of the weapon from the accused. Therefore, he argued that the appeal having no merit should be dismissed. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the evidence on record minutely and very carefully. 12. From the evidence on record, we find that it is not the case of circumstantial evidence. Rather, it is the case of direct evidence. First of all in the present case, place of occurrence has not been established beyond doubt. As per prosecution version, the statement of PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant was recorded at 11.15 P.M. by Sarabjit Singh, Inspector/SHO. As per evidence, the police station was at a distance of 500 mtrs from the place of occurrence. After preparing the inquest report, the Investigating Officer visited the spot and a Constable was sent with ruqa who met him in the way and informed regarding FIR number, which means that within a short time, Sarabjit Singh Inspector/SHO reached at place of occurrence and he did not find any blood on the spot. As per the statements of PWs, the shop was washed. This fact creates doubt in the prosecution version. As per cross-examination, blood was not seen on the spot as the floor has been washed with water. Blood was not there either on the chair, stool or in the shop. As per the statements of PWs, the shop was washed. This fact creates doubt in the prosecution version. As per cross-examination, blood was not seen on the spot as the floor has been washed with water. Blood was not there either on the chair, stool or in the shop. The Investigating Officer also stated that he did not notice blood in the car. He did not lift blood from the car. The dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for post-mortem in a private car, which was separate from the car in which the dead body was lying. The number of said private car was not entered in any document or reference was not made in any document of summoning the said car. The Investigating Officer also stated that he did not join in the investigation the owner and driver of the car in which the dead body was lying. He cannot give the name/make of the car also. He further stated in the cross-examination that they reached at the spot at 4.00 A.M.. If the ruqa was sent at 11.15 P.M. and the FIR was registered at 11.30 P.M., then how the Constable met the police party in the way at 4.00 A.M. to inform regarding the number of the FIR. We further find from the evidence on record that Dah was not sent to FSL nor it was found stained with blood. There is also no cogent evidence on the record to show that it was sealed or sealed parcel was prepared. DW- 3 HC Satnam Singh, who brought Register No.19 of the police station, stated it was not sealed nor was in a parcel, as per the entry. Therefore, in view of this evidence, the recovery of weapon of offence Dah also cannot be connected with the crime. Further, from the evidence on record, we find that presence of eye witnesses on the spot is also doubtful in the present case. PW-5 Nirmal Kumarcomplainant and PW-6 Rajinder Kumar, who were close relatives of the deceased were sitting along with the deceased in the shop. Vijay Kumar-accused as per evidence came with Dah and gave injuries. These persons did not try to over power him nor they tried to save the deceased from the accused. They have not received any injuries, which fact also shows that they were not present at the spot. Vijay Kumar-accused as per evidence came with Dah and gave injuries. These persons did not try to over power him nor they tried to save the deceased from the accused. They have not received any injuries, which fact also shows that they were not present at the spot. Otherwise also, they might have interfered to save Raj Kumar deceased. Non-presence of blood in the shop on any article including, chairs, stools etc. further creates doubt in the prosecution version. Again, no person from the neighbourhood has been examined. No servant working in the shop has been examined. The shop was lying open and washed, which means that some person has washed the shop after the occurrence and before the visit of the police. Why the shop was washed, no explanation has come on the record. Again, there is discrepancy regarding taking of blood-stained earth. PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant says that blood-stained earth was taken whereas, the Investigating Officer says that he did not find any blood on any article in the shop. Even the Investigating Officer stated that he has not seen any blood in the car in which dead body was lying. If the deceased has received six injuries with Dah, it is impossible that there was no blood on any article in the shop or in the car. There is also no evidence regarding registration number of the car in which the deceased was shifted nor the PWs are deposing regarding the owner of the car. Further, there is also discrepancy regarding the visit of the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence. In the chief examination, the Investigating Officer stated that after preparing the inquest report etc. he visited the spot and Constable, who was sent with ruqa, met in the way. In cross-examination, he stated that he visited the spot at 4.00 A.M. PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant stated that the Investigating Officer visited the spot at 6.00 A.M. The most important discrepancy in the present case is regarding the injuries. PW-5 Nirmal Kumar-complainant and PW-6 Rajinder Kumar deposed only regarding three injuries given by the accused but there are six injuries on the person of the deceased. The deceased also received injuries on the backside but there is no explanation, how he received these injuries. Rather, this fact regarding discrepancy in the number of blows further shows that these PWs were not present on the spot. 13. The deceased also received injuries on the backside but there is no explanation, how he received these injuries. Rather, this fact regarding discrepancy in the number of blows further shows that these PWs were not present on the spot. 13. From the record, further we find that as per DWs, there were two FDRs in the name of Daulat Kumar and accused amounting to Rs.33,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, which is also in consistent with the motive given by the prosecution that the accused was demanding more money and was idle etc. 14. Therefore, from the above discussion, we find merits in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. A reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. Presence of witnesses on the spot is doubtful. A reasonable doubt also exists regarding place of occurrence. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant, we held the appellant not guilty and acquit him from the charges framed against him. 15. In view of the above, it is ordered that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon the above mentioned appellant are set aside. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 16. The appeal stands allowed.