JUDGMENT Arun Tandon and Akhtar Husain Khan,JJ. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur dated 21st December, 1985, passed in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1985 arising out of Case Crime No. 316 of 1984, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur. All the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Sections 302/34, 201 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. For the said offences, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment, 2 years rigorous imprisonment and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. 3. The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the records of the present appeal, is as follows: 4. A Gumsudagi Report was lodged with Police Station Puwayan District Shahjahanpur on 21st December, 1984 by one Bhagwant, son of Chhutta Pasi, resident of village Imaliya, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur. It was stated that the brother of the informant, namely, Bachchu son of Chhutta Pasi had gone for performance of his duties at Puwayan on last Saturday but has not returned home since then. Bachchu was stated to be an employee on the crusher of Lal Gaya Prasad at Imalia, P.S. Powayan for the last 6-7 years. It was stated that every effort was made to search the Bachchu and information was solicited from relatives but he could not be traced. Therefore, a report be registered and appropriate action be taken. 5. On the same day i.e. 21st December, 1984, one Mahendra Singh is stated to have come to village Imalia. At that time, the police had come to ascertain the whereabouts of Bachchu. Mahendra Singh is stated to have disclosed that while he was coming from Puwayan to Imalia at some distance from the grove of Kallu Mahasaya, he saw a gathering of persons. He also visited the spot. He could see that there was blood near a well and that a foul smell was coming from inside the well. 6. On the said information, the Inspector, Police Station Puwayan went to the well along with Mahendra Singh. From the well the dead body of Bachchu could be recovered. After the informant had recognized the dead body to be that of Bachchu. Panchayat Nama was done and the dead body was sent for post mortem. 7. Dr. 6. On the said information, the Inspector, Police Station Puwayan went to the well along with Mahendra Singh. From the well the dead body of Bachchu could be recovered. After the informant had recognized the dead body to be that of Bachchu. Panchayat Nama was done and the dead body was sent for post mortem. 7. Dr. B.P. Sharma, Radiologist, District Hospital Shahjahanpur preformed the post mortem of the dead body of Bachchu on 22nd December, 1984. 8. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of victim Bachchu: "(1) Firearm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, intestines and lungs tissues coming out, 5 cm blow lower angle of left scapula. Blackening and tattooing not visible, direction of firearm entry from back to front. (2) Cut mark at roots of both the ears. Both the ear pinnas were absent from their roots and cut mark with clotted blood present on the root of the wound." 9. On internal examination of the dead body, Dr. Sharma found 7th left rib underneath injury no.1 and pleura ruptured on left side. Left lung and pericardium stood lacerated. Left and right ventricles of heart stood lacerated. There was present 700 ml clotted blood on left side of thoracic cavity. Abdominal walls stood lacerated on back side of injury no.2. Peritoneum stood lacerated. Abdominal cavity contained 3 ml. of blood that was clotted and semi liquid. Stomach was empty. Small intestines stood distended and contained gases. Large intestines were distended and contained gases and faecal matter. Bladder was empty. The Dr. Sharma extracted two pellets from heart muscles, 15 pellets and wadding pieces from thoracic cavity and three pellets from abdominal cavity. He also recovered 13 pellets from abdominal wall. The pellets and wadding pieces extracted were sealed in an envelope. He also took underwear of the person of the deceased and sealed it in a bundle. The sealed bundle and envelope were entrusted to constable for carriage to police office. In the opinion of the Dr. Sharma, dead was caused due to shock and haemorrhage , as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 10. The Investigating Officer, M.P. Bats, Station House Officer Puwayan recorded statement of Bhagwant and other members of his family. He also visited the place of recovery of dead body and prepared the site plan. In the opinion of the Dr. Sharma, dead was caused due to shock and haemorrhage , as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 10. The Investigating Officer, M.P. Bats, Station House Officer Puwayan recorded statement of Bhagwant and other members of his family. He also visited the place of recovery of dead body and prepared the site plan. He interrogated Mukhtar Singh, who was in jail in connection with any other case. During interrogation of Mukhtar Singh, complexity of Satyapal and Ganga Ram came to light and that the incident was witnessed by Ajuddhi and Joti. The witnesses were searched out and their statements were also recorded. Statement of Satyapal and Ganga Ram who were in jail in connection with other case were also recorded on remand. The Investigation Officer came to know that one Jangi knew something about the incident. He also recorded the statement of Jangi before whom Satyapal is stated to have made Extra Judicial Confession. After conclusion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 11. The case was committed to session. The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 394/302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. 12. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined informant Bhagvant, brother of the deceased Bachchu as P.W.-1. Mahendra Singh, he reported about the foul smell from the well, was examined as P.W.-2. Dr. V.P. Sharma, Radiologist, District Hospital Shahjahanpur, who performed the post-mortem of the dead body of Bachchu, was examined as P.W. 3. 13. Ajuddhi son of Shyam Lal, who claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident, was examined as P.W.4. Ajuddhi disclosed during examination-in-chief that nearly ten months earlier, while he was travelling from Imaliya to Puwayan along with one Joti, he heard gun shots towards east of Imaliya near the tree of Peepal. He threw the light with the help of torch, which he was carrying with him. He could see that the accused Mukhtar, Satyapal and Ganga Ram had fired upon Bachchu which caused injury and Bachchu fell on the ground. All three accused were well known to Ajuddhi and they are said to have told Ajuddhi to leave silently and not to disclose the incident to anybody, otherwise he shall also be dealt with in the same manner. 14. All three accused were well known to Ajuddhi and they are said to have told Ajuddhi to leave silently and not to disclose the incident to anybody, otherwise he shall also be dealt with in the same manner. 14. Jangi son of Sibba, who is stated to be engaged in the business of operating a Tanga was examined as P.W. -5. He stated that nearly 10-11 months earlier at around 02: 00 p.m. Satya Pal and Ganga Ram met him at the Puwayan Chungi and stated that he i.e. Jangi may inform Ajuddhi and Joti that they had looted Bachchu, and Bachchu had identified them, he had been shot dead. Since the Ajuddhi and Joti had seen the said incident, they must not disclose it to anybody or else they will be dealt with in the same manner. Jangi replied that he will inform them accordingly. 15. Sub-Inspector Dinesh Kumar, Police Station Puwayan, who had affected the recovery of the dead body of Bachchu, was examined as P.W. 6. 16. M.P. Vatsa, Station House Officer of Police Station Puwayan, the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W. 7. 17. The trial court after considering the evidence brought on record has held that there was no reason to disbelieve Ajuddhi. On the testimony of Ajuddhi and the Extra Judicial Confession of the accused before Jangi (P.W.5) the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against the accused with certainty and accordingly convicted them of the offences under Sections 394/302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and punished them accordingly under the judgement and order impugned in the present appeal. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the judgement of the trial court, submitted before this Court that Ajuddhi, at best can be said to be a chance witness. Testimony of Ajuddhi is too weak an evidence to come to a certain conclusion that the victim Bachchu had been done to death by the accused. 19. So far as the Extra judicial Confession of the accused before Jangi is concerned, it is submitted that the entire story as per the statement of Jangi (P.W.5) is wholly improbable. There is no reason as to why the accused would inform a Tangawala to warn Ajuddhi and Joti of the consequences, if they disclose the act of dacoity committed earlier. There is no reason as to why the accused would inform a Tangawala to warn Ajuddhi and Joti of the consequences, if they disclose the act of dacoity committed earlier. The entire version thereof is so unnatural that it cannot be accepted by any reasonable person. 20. He further submits that there is no explanation as to why Ajuddhi, who claims to be eye-witness of the incident for not disclosing the incident for months together to any person whatsoever including brother of the deceased. He further submits that evidence of a chance witness in the facts of the case cannot be held to be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge with certainty. 21. Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State disputes the correctness of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. He submits that the prosecution in the facts of the case has been able to bring home the charge with certainty against the accused appellants. 22. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have examined the records of the present appeal. 23. We have carefully gone through the statements of informant P.W. 1, brother of the deceased and we find that he had not expressed any apprehension qua the involvement of the accused in any manner in killing of his brother Bachchu. We further find that except for the statement of Ajuddhi, there is no evidence whatsoever which could implicate the accused in the commissioning of the offences. Ajuddhi is only a chance witness. His testimony has to be viewed with caution. His testimony has not been corroborated by any material evidence. His testimony does not inspire confidence about his having actually seen the incident. We further find that there is hardly any explanation as to why Ajuddhi did not inform anybody about the incident including the brother of the deceased for months together. 24. We are of the opinion that the testimony of such chance witness cannot be taken to be concussive for bring home the charge against the accused specifically, when it has not been corroborated by any other evidence. 25. 24. We are of the opinion that the testimony of such chance witness cannot be taken to be concussive for bring home the charge against the accused specifically, when it has not been corroborated by any other evidence. 25. So far as the the Extra Judicial Confession before Jangi is concerned, we are in the agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the story, as disclosed by Jangi in his statement, appears to be highly improbable. There is no reason as to why the accused would chose a Tangawala to warn Ajuddhi and Joti as he was neither friend nor a relative of Ajuddhi and Joti. The extra judicial confession could also not be made the basis for conviction of the accused for the offence alleged. 26. We in the facts of the case are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused with certainty, on the basis of evidence, which has been produced by the prosecution. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. We, therefore, set aside the judgement and order of the trial court dated 21st December, 1985. The accused are held to be not guilty of the offences alleged against them. Since the accused are already on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. The present criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.