Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 434 (HP)

Hem Raj v. State of H. P.

2014-04-22

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge This judgment shall dispose of both appeals arising out of the judgment dated 20.4.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, whereby both accused, namely Bhagat Ram, hereinafter referred to as “accused No.1” and Hem Raj alias Raju, hereinafter referred to as “accused No.2”, have been convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.20,000/- each as fine. 2. Challenge to the impugned judgment is on the ground, inter alia, that for want of cogent and reliable evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused persons with the offence of murder of Meer Chand, however, the Court below convicted them erroneously on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There is no direct evidence and whatever evidence is produced by the prosecution is contradictory in nature, which allegedly has been mis-appreciated and misconstrued simply to convict both accused. Prosecution story allegedly is not trustworthy and has been erroneously believed to be true. It has, therefore, been urged that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below being perverse may be quashed and set aside. 3. Before coming to the merits of the case, as set out in these appeals, it is desirable to take note of the facts in brief, leading to registration of the case against the accused persons. 4. Deceased Meer Chand was resident of village Paterni, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba. PW3 Chino Devi is his widow, whereas PW-1 Parbinder Kumar (Bittu) is his son. As per the story propounded by the prosecution, Kumari Rekha is the daughter of accused Bhagat Ram. She allegedly had intimacy with PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, aforesaid. They used to graze cattle in jungle and meet with each other. Accused Bhagat Ram was not happy with their friendship and intimacy and as such waiting for an opportunity when he could eliminate PW1. The investigation further reveals that accused Bhagat Ram even was inimical to two other persons, namely Nazir and Sonu and was after them. They, however, came to Kullu side in search of some job to earn their livelihood and in this way saved themselves from him. The investigation further reveals that accused Bhagat Ram even was inimical to two other persons, namely Nazir and Sonu and was after them. They, however, came to Kullu side in search of some job to earn their livelihood and in this way saved themselves from him. Before leaving the village, they told PW-4 Razzaq Mohammed and PW6 Rafi Mohammad to apprise PW-1 Parbinder Kumar to be cautious as accused Bhagat Ram, was aware about his relations with Rekha, the daughter of accused and was looking for an opportunity to do away with him. Therefore, target of accused persons allegedly was PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, but it is his father deceased Meer Chand, sleeping in open, outside the main door of the house, was strangulated by accused No.1 and stabbed with Chhuri (knife) Ext. P12 by accused No.2, who succumbed to the injuries so inflicted on his person on the way to hospital. 5. PW-3 Chino Devi, who was sleeping inside the house, woke up on hearing alarm “MAAR DIYA MAAR DIYA”, raised by her deceased husband Meer Chand. She called her son PW1 Parbinder Kumar and nephew (Bhanja) PW-12 Prem Singh, who were sleeping in a separate room. On raising alarm by PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, PW2 Latif Mohammad, his sons PW-4 Razzaq Mohammad and PW-6 Rafi Mohammad alongwith other villagers gathered there. PW2 Latif Mohammad informed the police of Police Post, Salooni under Police Station, Kihar around 12.45 a.m. over telephone about the occurrence. The deceased was removed to Civil Hospital, Salooni. He was not found fit to make any statement and as such, referred to District Hospital, Chamba. He was further referred to Rajender Prashad Medical College and Hospital, Tanda, but on the way to the said hospital, succumbed to the injuries he received on his person in the incident. 6. Police arrived in the hospital at Salooni and recorded statement Ext. PW3/A under Section 154 Cr. P.C. of PW3 Smt. Chino Devi, who told that on hearing alarm around 12.15 a.m., “MAAR DIYA MAAR DIYA”, she came out at once and noticed two persons fleeing away, whereas her husband sitting on the cot holding his abdomen. On asking as to what happened, he told that two persons had come and one out of them pressed his neck whereas another inflicted blow on his abdomen with some sharp edged weapon and also assaulted him in his arm. On asking as to what happened, he told that two persons had come and one out of them pressed his neck whereas another inflicted blow on his abdomen with some sharp edged weapon and also assaulted him in his arm. Since the injuries on his person were profusely bleeding, therefore, he was removed to hospital with the help of Latif Mohammad and other villagers gathered there. On the statement so made by PW-3, FIR Ext.PW16/A came to be registered in Police Station Kihar, District Chamba. PW-18 ASI Ashok Kumar took in hand investigation of the case, which even was conducted partly by PW-19 Pritam Singh, the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Kihar. Accused No.1 was arrested in this case on 22.6.2007, as is apparent from arrest memo. Ext. PW18/J. 7. During the course of further investigation, it transpired that accused No.2 allegedly quarreled with PW-3 Smt. Chino Devi on 12.7.2007, when she was grazing cattle and hurled filthy abuses to her. When she retaliated, the said accused allegedly proclaimed openly that she should drink cold water for 2-3 days more and thereafter he will eliminate her in the same way, as he eliminated her husband Meer Chand. Accused No.2 allegedly made such utterances in the presence of PW-5 Vias Dev and PW-7 Pawan Kumar and other villagers also. Therefore, accused No.2 was also arrested in this case on 24.7.2007, as is apparent from the arrest memo. Ext. PW19/A. 8. Investigation was conducted and on receipt of the reports Ext. PX, PY and PZ from the Forensic Science Laboratory, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against both accused, seeking thereby their prosecution for the commission of offence, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned trial Judge after having gone through the record and hearing the parties as well as on finding a prima-facie case having been made out under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, framed charge against both of them. They, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to sustain the charge against them has, therefore, examined 19 witnesses in all. 10. On the other hand, the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. They, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to sustain the charge against them has, therefore, examined 19 witnesses in all. 10. On the other hand, the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. have denied the entire prosecution case being wrong and in their defence raised the plea of innocence and also that they have been implicated falsely on account of enmity. Learned trial Judge, however, believing the evidence produced by the prosecution to be cogent and reliable has convicted both the accused and sentenced them, as pointed out at the very outset. 11. Shri Naresh Sood, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Anup Chitkara, Advocate, during the course of arguments, have urged that there is no iota of evidence, which can be termed as legal and acceptable to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence, whereas the evidence relied upon against accused No.2 is highly contradictory and has come on record by way of testimony of the witnesses, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case. It has also been pointed out that the present is a case which hinges upon circumstantial evidence. It is not at all proved beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances so pressed into service in order to bring the guilt home to the accused persons, if taken together, lead to no other inference than that of their guilt. Material prosecution witnesses, namely PW2 Latif Mohammad, his sons PW4 Razaq Mohammad and PW6 Rafi Mohammad, all turned hostile having not supported the prosecution case qua material aspect. The remaining witnesses, including PW3 Smt. Chino Devi and her son PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, nephew PW12 Prem Singh and for that matter even PW5 Vias Dev and PW7Pawan Kumar, being closely related and inimical to the accused, have deposed falsely against them and, therefore, according to learned defence counsel, their testimony could have not been taken into consideration in order to record findings of conviction against both the accused. 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the present is a case where each and every circumstance pressed into service against the accused persons is fully proved and the chain is complete in all respects so as to lead to the only conclusion that it is the accused persons alone, who have murdered the deceased. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the present is a case where each and every circumstance pressed into service against the accused persons is fully proved and the chain is complete in all respects so as to lead to the only conclusion that it is the accused persons alone, who have murdered the deceased. Learned Additional Advocate General has, therefore, emphasized that the judgment passed by learned trial Judge being legally and factually sustainable is liable to be upheld and the conviction of the accused persons maintained. 13. Having gone through the record and also taking into consideration the rival submissions, admittedly, the present is not a case of direct evidence and the case rather hinges on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case, which hinges on circumstantial evidence, circumstances on record must establish the guilt of the accused alone and rule out all the probabilities, leading to presumption of innocence of the accused. The law is no more res integra, because the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1952 SC 343 , has laid down the following principles, applicable in a case of circumstantial evidence : ““It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 14. The five golden principles, discussed and laid down, again by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. The five golden principles, discussed and laid down, again by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , read as follows : (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 15. From the impugned judgment, it cannot be made out as to which were the circumstances taken into consideration by learned trial Judge to record the findings of conviction against the accused persons. The Court below has recorded findings in this case by assuming that the present is a case of direct evidence. The testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW12, even if believed to be reliable, reveals that while in the witness box they have only disclosed that the deceased was stabbed by someone in his abdomen and when seen by them, was in an injured condition. There is no quarrel that deceased Meer Chand died in an unnatural death i.e. on account of injury inflicted by unknown assailant in his abdomen. 16. The first version of complainant PW3 Chino Devi, even if believed to be true, reveals that the assailants were two in number. It is not the prosecution case that the complainant disclosed the names of the accused persons to be the assailants in her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. No doubt, while in the witness box as PW-3 she improved her version and stated that her deceased husband disclosed that accused No.1 pressed his neck; whereas accused No.2 stabbed in his abdomen with sharp edged weapon. P.C. No doubt, while in the witness box as PW-3 she improved her version and stated that her deceased husband disclosed that accused No.1 pressed his neck; whereas accused No.2 stabbed in his abdomen with sharp edged weapon. When the deceased, as per the prosecution story itself, was assaulted around 12.15 a.m., the dead hours of night, most probably, at that time, he must be in sound sleep, how he could have recognized the assailants to be accused No.1 and 2 alone and none-else. Otherwise also, had the names of the accused been disclosed by the deceased to his wife the complainant, why she has not disclosed their names in her statement Ex.PW-3/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking judicial notice of the above facts, the present is not a case of direct evidence and rather the same hinges upon circumstantial evidence. 17. Otherwise also, had the names of the accused been disclosed by the deceased to his wife the complainant, why she has not disclosed their names in her statement Ex.PW-3/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking judicial notice of the above facts, the present is not a case of direct evidence and rather the same hinges upon circumstantial evidence. 17. The circumstances, as emerge from the close scrutiny of the record and the evidence, which could have been pressed into service against the accused persons, are as follows : (i) alleged intimacy and friendly relations between PW1 Parbinder Kumar son of the deceased and Kumari Rekha daughter of accused Bhagat Ram; (ii) alleged representation made by one Nazir and Sonu before PW-4 Razzaq Mohammad and PW6 Rafi Mohammad that since accused Bhagat Ram is after them, they are leaving the village and going towards Kullu in search of some work to earn their livelihood and that they (PW-4 & PW-6) should apprise PW1 Parbinder Kumar, to be cautious as the said accused being well aware about the relations and intimacy with the daughter of the said accused, is inimical to him and looking for an opportunity to kill him; (iii) PW1 Parbinder Kumar allegedly is not a person of good character and rather a vagabond as he was seen in forest area with Kumari Rekha daughter of accused Bhagat Ram and, therefore, the accused persons planned to kill said Parbinder Kumar, however, unfortunately, it is the deceased who was killed by them; (iv) Quarrel having taken place on 12.7.2007 between complainant Chino Devi and accused No.2 and hurling of abuses by the said accused to her and when she asked the reason for hurling such abuses, he proclaimed that she should drink cold water 2-3 days more and thereafter he will eliminate her also in the same way as he eliminated her deceased husband Meer Chand; and (v) Disclosure statement Ext. PW8/A made by accused No.2 while in the police custody and recovery of Chhuri Ext. P12, pursuant to the statement so made. Circumstance No.1 18. It is seen that in the statement under Section 154 Cr. PW8/A made by accused No.2 while in the police custody and recovery of Chhuri Ext. P12, pursuant to the statement so made. Circumstance No.1 18. It is seen that in the statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C, which as a matter of fact contains the very first version qua the manner in which the incident took place, there is no reference of relations and intimacy between PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, son of the deceased and Kumari Rekha, daughter of accused Bhagat Ram. In the event of any such intimacy being there between them, as has come in the statement of PW-1 Parbinder Kumar and that of his cousin (maternal uncle’s son) PW-12 Prem Singh, PW-3 Smt. Chino Devi, the complainant, must also be in the knowledge and notice thereof and as such should have named accused No.1 as assailant at least on suspicion. The factum of accused being inimical to them would also have been in her knowledge and notice and as such she should have revealed so to the police in her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The prosecution has put forth the story to this effect on the basis of the testimony of PW-2 Latif Mohammad, his sons PW-4 Razzaq Mohammad and PW-4 Rafi Mohammad and also on that of PW12 Prem Singh. It is, however, seen that PW2, PW4 and PW6 have not supported the prosecution case qua this aspect of the matter at all. They rather stated in one voice that their statements to this effect recorded under Section 151 Cr. P.C. were never made by them to the police. No doubt, PW12 Prem Singh while in the witness box has come forward with the version that on 13.7.2007 while grazing cattle with PW1 Parbinder Kumar, Kumari Rekha also came there and they had some conversation with each other. They, however, were noticed by some unknown person, who after noticing both of them together, left that place, without asking anything. Similar is also version of PW-1 Parbiner Kumar. They both, however, are interested witnesses and as such cannot be relied upon, particularly when PW-1 while in the witness box has stated that accused No.1 was not suspecting his relations with Kumari Rekha. In the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of PW-12 Prem Singh, there is nothing that on 13.6.2007, PW-1 Parbinder Kumar and Rekha met each other and had some conversation also. In the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of PW-12 Prem Singh, there is nothing that on 13.6.2007, PW-1 Parbinder Kumar and Rekha met each other and had some conversation also. It is also not known to him as to when he made statement to this effect to the police. Otherwise also, he being cousin of PW1 Parbinder Kumar can reasonably be believed an interested witness and must have stated so voluntarily to implicate the accused persons in the commission of the offence. Above all, when there emerge two possible views on record from the perusal of evidence having come on record by way of the testimony of two sets of witnesses, i.e. PW2, PW4 and PW6 on one hand and PW-1 and PW-12 on the other, the view favouring the accused is to be believed as cogent and plausible and the benefit of doubt given to them. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that PW-1 Parbinder Kumar had intimacy with Kumari Rekha daughter of accused No.1 and as the said accused was inimical to him, therefore, he planned to kill PW1, however, unfortunately it is his father Meer Chand, who had to lose his life in this occurrence. Circumstance No.2. 19. Interestingly enough, this aspect of the prosecution story is based upon the alleged representation made by Nazir and Sonu that they on apprehending danger to their lives at the hands of accused No.1 decided to leave the village and proceeded towards Kullu side in search of some work and that there is danger to the life of PW1 Parbinder Kumar also from the said accused, as he is aware about the relations of the said witness with his daughter Rekha. Said Nazir and Sonu, however, have not been associated in the investigation of the case nor examined to prove this aspect of the prosecution case. Since PW4 Razzaq Mohammad and PW6 Rafi Mohammad did not support the prosecution case qua such representation having been made by Nazir and Sonu in their presence, therefore, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that said Sonu and Nazir had cautioned PW1 Parbinder through them to be cautious as accused No.1 may eliminate him at any time on account of the said accused suspecting the relations of PW-1 with Rekha, his daughter. Both PW4 Razzaq Mohammad and PW6 Rafi Mohammad have denied any such statement having been made during the course of investigation, though they were subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, however, nothing could be elicited therefrom, lending support to the prosecution case. Their father Latif Mohammad has also not supported the prosecution case that PW-1 Parabinder Kumar was not a person of good character and rather a vagabond and had been seen in the company of Rekha on so many occasions, as he resiled from the said version, recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Therefore, there hardly remains any evidence which can be termed as legal and acceptable to believe that Sonu and Nazir proclaimed that accused No.1 was after them, however, they decided to leave the village to save themselves from him and that he is after PW-1 also and told PW-4 and PW-6 to advise PW-1 to be cautious. Therefore, on this score also, no findings of conviction against the accused persons could have been recorded. Circumstance No.3 20. It is already held in para supra, while discussing the first circumstance against the accused persons that the prosecution story qua relations of PW1 with the daughter of accused No.1 is not at all proved. Prosecution has based its case on the statement of PW-2 Latif Mohamaad recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the character of PW-1 is not good and he is a vagabond person having been seen in the company of Rekha daughter of accused No.1 in the forest area on several occasions. PW2, however, while in the witness box has denied any such statement having been made before the police. Therefore, there hardly remains any evidence to show that PW-1 was having relations with the daughter of accused No.1 and as such he had planned to kill PW-1, however, taking the deceased, who was sleeping on a cot in open outside the door of his house, as PW-1, though assaulted him, however, it is his father, who sleeping on that cot, was killed. Therefore, we find that this part of the prosecution story is also not proved and as such no findings of conviction on this score could have been recorded against the accused persons. Circumstance No.4 21. Therefore, we find that this part of the prosecution story is also not proved and as such no findings of conviction on this score could have been recorded against the accused persons. Circumstance No.4 21. In support of this part of the prosecution case, reliance has been placed on the testimony of PW3 Chino Devi and that of PW-1 Parbinder Kumar, PW5 Vias Dev and PW-7 Pawan Kumar. PW-1 and PW-3 being son and mother respectively are closely related with each other. Above all, what was the motive behind hurling abuses by accused No.2 is missing in their respective statements while in the witness box. They are thus not reliable and dependable nor their testimony can be termed as cogent and reliable to arrive at a conclusion that on 12.7.2007, accused No.2 quarrelled with PW-3, the complainant, when she was grazing cattle and hurled filthy abuses to her and when she retaliated he proclaimed that she should drink cold water 2-3 days more and thereafter he will eliminate her also in the same manner as he did in the case of her husband deceased Meer Chand. True it is that PW-7 Pawan Kumar while in the witness box has supported the prosecution story in this behalf and stated that accused No.2 proclaimed openly that he had killed Meer Chand and will kill her (Chino Devi) also and advised her that she should take meals 2-3 days more. However, this witness is also closely related to the complainant and her son PW-1, because in his cross-examination he has admitted that Smt. Geeta Devi his mother, previously was the wife of deceased Meer Chand. Meaning thereby that since the previous husband of his mother was the deceased, therefore, his cordial relations with the complainant PW3 and her son PW1 cannot be ruled out. As regards PW5 Vias Dev, he has only said that on 12.7.2007, while grazing cattle accused No.2 started hurling abuses to the complainant. Why he hurled the abuses, this witness, however, failed to explain and if his cross-examination is seen, it is stated by him that accused No.2 had not given any threat to Smt. Chino Devi, the complainant. As regards PW5 Vias Dev, he has only said that on 12.7.2007, while grazing cattle accused No.2 started hurling abuses to the complainant. Why he hurled the abuses, this witness, however, failed to explain and if his cross-examination is seen, it is stated by him that accused No.2 had not given any threat to Smt. Chino Devi, the complainant. It is, therefore, not proved at all that accused No.2 on 12.7.2007 quarrelled with PW-3 and hurled abuses to her and also proclaimed that she should drink cold water/take meals 2-3 days more and that thereafter he will kill her also, like Meer Chand, her husband. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has committed grave error in placing reliance upon the testimony of interested witnesses to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence. Circumstance No.5 22. No doubt, as per the prosecution case accused No.2 while in police custody has made disclosure statement Ext. PW8/A, in presence of the witnesses. Recovery of Chhuri Ext. P12 has also been said to be effected pursuant to the statement so made by him. However, the only witness PW8 Tej Ram examined in this behalf is neither a Ward Member nor Pardhan and rather seems to be a stock witness. True it is that in his cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel the suggestions that he has appeared as witness in more than 100 police cases has been denied being wrong, however, it is admitted that he has appeared as witness on behalf of prosecution in 1-2 cases. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of a witness, like PW8. Otherwise also, the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence pursuant thereto is a weak type of evidence and should be relied upon with all care, caution and circumspection. There being no blood stain on the Chhuri Ext. P12 allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, leads to the only conclusion that the same is not a weapon of offence and rather its recovery is fabricated and engineered by the police to implicate accused No.2 falsely in this case. 23. The evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-9 Madan Lal, who is a witness to the recovery of pant Ext. 23. The evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-9 Madan Lal, who is a witness to the recovery of pant Ext. P-10, allegedly produced by accused No.2 while in custody, PW-10 Sushil Kumar, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Bachuni, who has supplied Tatima Ext. PW10/A and Jamabandi Ext. PW10/B of the place of occurrence, PW-11 Dr. Vikas Goswami, who has examined the deceased initially in CHC, Salooni vide MLC Ext. PW11/B, PW-13 Constable Mohinder Singh, on being deputed by MHC Tilak Raj, had taken the case property to FSL, Junga and delivered the same there, PW-14 HC Tilak Raj, who being MHC of Police Station, Kihar, on his return after availing the leave, was entrusted the case property by HC Sheesh Pal and later on forwarded the same to FSL, Junga through HHC PW-15 Krishan Chand, PW-16 HC Sheesh Pal, who was officiating as MHC, Police Station, Kihar and received the case property from the I.O. for safe custody in the Malkhana and PW-17 HC Naresh Kumar, who has proved Rapat Rojnamcha Ext. PW17/A, is formal in nature and could have been used as a link evidence, had the prosecution been otherwise able to bring the guilt home to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 24. Similarly, PW-18 ASI Ashok Kumar and PW-19 Pritam Singh, the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Kihar, who have investigated the case, are also formal, because nothing tangible showing involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the alleged offence has come on record by way of their respective testimony. 25. Therefore, looking to the present case from any angle, the circumstances from which the conclusion qua the guilt of the accused could have been drawn are neither fully established nor conclusive or complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused nor established that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The conclusion to the contrary drawn by learned trial Judge, therefore is neither legally nor factually sustainable. Consequently, the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of alleged offence is not at all established beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial Judge rather has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective. 26. The conclusion to the contrary drawn by learned trial Judge, therefore is neither legally nor factually sustainable. Consequently, the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of alleged offence is not at all established beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial Judge rather has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective. 26. The upshot of the discussion hereinabove would be that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused persons, therefore, are entitled to benefit of doubt and ultimately acquittal. 27. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, both appeals succeed and the same are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. The accused persons, who are in jail and serving out the sentence imposed upon them by learned trial Court, be set free forthwith, in case they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited by them be also refunded against proper identification and receipt. Both appeals stand disposed of accordingly.