JUDGMENT P.S. Rana Judge. Judgment: Both these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by the same judgment because both appeals have filed against the same judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts of the prosecution case 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on dated 13th July 2009 at about 9.45 AM Nishar had gone to offer prayer of Namaj in village Bhood and accused persons gave beatings to deceased Nishar. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter deceased took to Malhotra Hospital at Baddi in the vehicle of PW4 Balbir driven by PW5 Shamsher Singh and thereafter deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he died on dated 17.7.2009. It is alleged by prosecution that statement of PW1 Gafoor was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW1/A and ruka Ext.PW10/D was also written and thereafter FIR Ext.PW10/E was recorded. It is also alleged by prosecution that deceased Nishar had requested the accused persons to keep the chain of dog tight because pet dog used to jump upon the children. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons told the deceased that accused persons would not chain their pet dog and in case the deceased would insist then deceased would be killed by accused persons. It is also alleged by prosecution that post mortem of deceased was conducted and dead body was handed over vide Ext.PW2/C to PW2 and thereafter deceased was cremated on dated 18th July, 2009. Photographs of dead body are Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C and police also prepared the inquest report. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons hired vehicle No. HP-12B-2228 and crossed the barrier from Nalagarh side to Ropar side and copies of entries of Barrier are Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B. It is also alleged by prosecution that as per the medical certificates Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW8/B the injuries sustained by deceased could be sustained by beating. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased was unfit for giving any statement and thereafter statement of Gafoor Mohammed was recorded. After completion of investigation final report was prepared and criminal case was filed under Sections 302, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons on 23rd August, 2010. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. After completion of investigation final report was prepared and criminal case was filed under Sections 302, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons on 23rd August, 2010. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined following seventeen oral witnesses in all in support of its case:- PW No. Name of the witness 1. Gafur. 2. Sadeek Mohammad. 3. Sher Mohammad. 4. Balbir Singh 5. Shamsher Singh. 6. Harvinder Singh 7. Karam Chand. 8. Dr. Anil Kumar. 9. Dr. S.P. Mandal. 10. HC Mohan Lal. 11. HC Avtar Singh 12. Rattan Kumar 13. H.C. Satnam Singh 14. HC Harpal Singh 15. SI Dharam Singh 16. Inspector Dharam Chand 17. Dr. S.A. Siddiqui 4.1 The prosecution also produced the following pieces of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description of the document Exhibit 1 Statement of Gafoor Ext.PW1/A 2 Rukka Ext.PW10/D 3 Endorsement on Rukka Ext.PW12/A 4 Copies of Inquest report Ext.PW2/A & B 5 Receipt. Ext.PW2/C 6 Copy of statement of Balbir Ext.PW4/A 7 Copies of Time table Ext.PW7/A 8 Memo Ext.PW7/B 9 Copy of application Ext.PW8/A 10 Opinion Ext.PW8/B 11 Copy of application Ext.PW9/A 12 Copy of post mortem Ext.PW9/J 13 Receipt Ext.PW9/K 14 Information Ext.PW9/L 15 Copy of diary entry No. 46-A Ext.PW10/A 16 Copy of diary entry No. 5-A Ext.PW10/B 17 Copy of diary entry No. 11(A) Ext.PW10/C 18 Copy of FIR Ext.PW10/E 19 Certificate Ext.PW10/F 20 Spot Map Ext.PW13/A 21 Copy of application Ext.PW13/B 22 Opinion Ext.PW17/A 23 Copy of statement of Gafoor Ext.PW13/C 24 Copy of application Ext.PW14/A 25 Copy of statement of Harvinder Ext.PW15/A 26 Copy of statement of Shamsher Ext.PW15/B 27 Copy of medical legal record Book Ext.PW17/B 28 Certified copy of judgment Ext.DX 29 Copy of statement of Sadeek Ext.D2 30 Copy of statement of Sher Mohd. Ext.D3 31. Photographs Ext.PW1/B & C, Ext.PW9/B to H 5. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 were recorded and accused persons did not lead any oral evidence in defence. 6. Learned trial Court convicted co-accused Jaswant @ Rulda under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him qua offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned trial Court also acquitted co-accused Sadeek Khan and Faujia wife of Sadeek Khan. 6. Learned trial Court convicted co-accused Jaswant @ Rulda under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him qua offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned trial Court also acquitted co-accused Sadeek Khan and Faujia wife of Sadeek Khan. Learned trial Court heard the convicted upon quantum of sentence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also imposed fine to the tune of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicted shall further undergo to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Grounds of appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2011 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned trial Court, convicted Jaswant Singh @ Rulda filed criminal appeal No. 195 of 2011 on the following memorandum of grounds of appeal. It is pleaded that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence on record and it is pleaded that case is not proved against the appellant. It is pleaded that PW1 Gafoor deposed that all accused persons were beating deceased Nashir Mohammad when they reached the spot. It is pleaded that PW1 Gafoor had deposed that when they reached the spot the accused persons fled away. It is pleaded that PW1 Gafoor has stated that he along with his three sons and Sarvshri Chinda son of Nathu and Balbir were present at the spot and they have witnessed the incident. It is pleaded that there was no enmity between the deceased and accused persons. It is pleaded that Sadeek Khan had brought the dog and deceased had some altercation two days prior to the incident relating to dog to the effect that dog should be chained. It is pleaded that PW4 Balbir has stated that there were 10-12 persons at the spot but no person from the village has been examined by the prosecution. It is pleaded that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case as alleged by the prosecution and it is further pleaded that findings of learned trial Court are based upon conjectures and surmises. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has not properly discussed the oral evidence adduced by prosecution. It is pleaded that no independent witness has been associated in the investigation of present case. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has not properly discussed the oral evidence adduced by prosecution. It is pleaded that no independent witness has been associated in the investigation of present case. It is further pleaded that appellant did not commit any offence and the appellant is innocent. It is also pleaded that in alternative sentence passed by learned trial Court is excessive in nature. It is pleaded that essential ingredients of Section 302 IPC are not proved on record in present case. It is pleaded that cause of death of deceased is also not proved on record. It is pleaded that it is not proved on record that which of the accused inflicted injuries upon which part of the body of deceased. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. Ground of appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2011 8. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence adduced against co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia and it is further pleaded that impugned judgment qua co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia is based upon conjectures and surmises. It is pleaded that acquittal of co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts. It is pleaded that as per testimony of PW1 Gafoor it is proved on record that all accused persons namely Jaswant, Sadeek Khan and Faujia were beating the deceased. It is pleaded that even as per testimony of PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad who reached at the spot immediately after the incident it is proved in positive manner that three accused persons fled away from the spot when they noticed the family members of deceased approaching to the place of incident. It is pleaded that conduct of all accused persons is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has committed illegality in acquitting co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 9. We have learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 10. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has committed illegality in acquitting co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 9. We have learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 10. Questions that arise for determination before us in these appeals are whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in convicting appellant Jaswant Singh @ Rulda and whether as per material placed on record learned trial Court was justified in acquitting co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia, wife of co-accused Sadeek Khan. Oral Evidence produced by prosecution 11. PW1 Gafur has stated that deceased Nisar was his son. He has stated that deceased was having transportation business. He has stated that on dated 13th July 2009 at about 9.45 PM his son Nisar had gone to Masque for offering prayers of ‘Namaj’ in his village. He has stated that he was sitting on the cot in court yard of his house. He has stated that he heard noises coming from the side of house. He has stated that after hearing the noise his sons Sher Mohammad, Chinda and Balvir rushed to the spot. He has stated that all the accused persons present in the court were beating his son Nishar Mohammad and Nishar had fallen down upon the ground. He has stated that Nishar Mohammad was lying unconscious and was having injuries on head near ear and on the left elbow. He has stated that blood was oozing out from deceased Nishar Mohammad. He has stated that when they reached at the place of occurrence all the accused persons fled away from the spot to their houses. He has stated that he along with his three sons and other persons namely Chinda son of Nathu and Balvir reached at the spot. He has stated that all above stated persons have witnessed the occurrence. He has further stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was taken to Malhotra Hospital at Baddi in the vehicle of Sh Balbir and thereafter deceased Nishar Mohammad was referred to PGI Chandigarh for medical treatment. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad remained in PGI Chandigarh up to 17th July 2009 and succumbed to his injuries. He has further stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was taken to Malhotra Hospital at Baddi in the vehicle of Sh Balbir and thereafter deceased Nishar Mohammad was referred to PGI Chandigarh for medical treatment. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad remained in PGI Chandigarh up to 17th July 2009 and succumbed to his injuries. He has stated that police came at the spot on 15th July 2009 and his statement Ext PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police. He has stated that he signed at point ‘A’. He has stated that post mortem of dead body was conducted in PGI Chandigarh and thereafter dead body was handed over to him. He has stated that dead body was cremated on dated 18th July, 2009. He has stated that Ext PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C are photographs of dead body of his son deceased Nishar Mohammad. He has stated that there was no previous enmity between accused and his son Nishar Mohammad or other family members. He has stated that Sadeek had brought a dog. He has stated that his deceased son Nishar Mohammad two days prior to the incident had requested the Sadeek to keep his dog in chain. He has stated that some altercation took place between accused and his deceased son Nishar Mohammad. He has stated that said dog used to bark upon the children. He has stated that accused persons told Nishar Mohammad that they would not chain their pet dog and in case deceased Nishar Mohammad would insist the same they would kill away deceased Nishar Mohammad. In cross examination he denied suggestion that he told to the Investigating Agency that he was not aware who had given beatings to deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that false story was concocted after due deliberation. He has stated that co-accused Sadeek and Faujia were living in a separate home. He has also denied suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion on the basis of altercation which took place relating to a pet dog. He has admitted that one truck of deceased Nishar Mohammad was stolen at Delhi prior to the incident. He denied suggestion that driver and conductor were terminated. He has stated that since his vehicle was stolen driver and conductor of the vehicle left the job. He has admitted that one truck of deceased Nishar Mohammad was stolen at Delhi prior to the incident. He denied suggestion that driver and conductor were terminated. He has stated that since his vehicle was stolen driver and conductor of the vehicle left the job. 11.1 PW2 Sadeek Mohammad has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was his elder brother. He has stated that co-accused Sadeek had brought dog and 2/3 days prior to incident deceased Nishar Mohammad had requested co-accused Sadeek to chain his dog as the dog was barking upon the children. He has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.45 PM he was present in his house and his father was sitting on a cot in the court yard. He has stated that he heard noises and alarm and thereafter they rushed to the spot. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was lying unconscious in the street in front of the house of Balvir. He has stated that when accused persons saw the family members of the deceased at the spot of the incident they fled away to their houses. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was injured and blood was oozing out from the injuries sustained by him. He has stated that deceased was taken to hospital and thereafter he was referred to PGI Chandigarh and he also accompanied the deceased Nishar Mohammad. He has stated that police prepared the inquest report in duplicate which is Ext PW2/A and Ext PW2/B which bears his signature and the signature of witness Sher Mohammad at point ‘B’. In cross examination he has stated that accused was bleeding profusely when they reached at the spot. He denied suggestion that entire villagers were gathered at the spot after hearing the noise. Self stated that only family members of deceased Nishar Mohammad were present at the spot. He denied suggestion that distance between the place of incident and his house is about 125 metres. He denied suggestion that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. 11.2 PW3 Sher Mohammad has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was his elder brother. He has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.45 PM he was present in his house and his father was sitting on a cot in the courtyard of the house. He denied suggestion that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. 11.2 PW3 Sher Mohammad has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was his elder brother. He has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.45 PM he was present in his house and his father was sitting on a cot in the courtyard of the house. He has stated that on hearing noise they rushed to the spot where deceased Nishar Mohammad was lying unconscious near the house of Balvir and was bleeding profusely. He has stated that they noticed that all the accused persons present in the Court were fleeing from the spot to their houses. He has stated that the injured was taken to Malhotra Hospital Baddi in the vehicle of Balvir and thereafter deceased Nishar Mohammad was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh up to 17th July 2009 when he succumbed to his injuries. He has stated that police prepared inquest report Ext PW2/A and Ext PW2/B which bears his signature. He has stated that post mortem of deceased Nishar Mohammad was conducted in PGI Chandigarh and dead body was handed over for burial. He has stated that accused persons had brought a pet dog and the dog used to run after the children and passers-by to bite them. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad had requested the accused persons to chain the pet dog but the accused persons have refused to chain the pet dog. In cross examination he denied suggestion that deceased Nishar Mohammad was picked up and kept in the courtyard of co-accused Sadeek first and thereafter taken to Malhotra Hospital. He denied suggestion that there are many houses adjoining to the house of deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that entire villagers were gathered at the spot along with accused persons. He has stated that only 4/5 persons were gathered at the spot of incident. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 17th July, 2009. He denied suggestion that they had not disclosed the name of accused persons to the police officials. He denied suggestion that they had shown ignorance about the assailants. He denied suggestion that a false story was concocted due to suspicious. He denied suggestion that accused was conscious at PGI Chandigarh. He denied suggestion that they had not disclosed the name of accused persons to the police officials. He denied suggestion that they had shown ignorance about the assailants. He denied suggestion that a false story was concocted due to suspicious. He denied suggestion that accused was conscious at PGI Chandigarh. 11.3 PW4 Balbir Singh has stated that he is working as Clerk in Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank at Baddi. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was known to him. He has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.45 PM he was present at his house. He has stated that when he went to lock the main gate of his house he noticed Nishar Mohammad lying unconscious in the street and was bleeding profusely. He has stated that he raised alarm and thereafter father and brothers of Nishar Mohammad along with other people from the village gathered at the spot. He has stated that he called his son to bring vehicle and thereafter they took Nishar Mohammad to Malhotra hospital Baddi. He has stated that thereafter Nishar Mohammad was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that Nishar Mohammad was admitted in PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that Nishar Mohammad died on 17th July 2009 at PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that all the three accused persons were present along with residents of the village at the spot. The witness was declared hostile. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that Nishar Mohammad came to his house at approximately 9.45 PM on dated 13th July, 2009. He denied suggestion that deceased Nishar Mohammad came to his house since he had to go for urgent work. He has stated that he does not know that co-accused Jaswant @ Rulda was keeping watch on deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that co-accused Jaswant @ Rulda came to his house again at 9.45 PM. He denied suggestion that accused persons present in the Court were standing at the spot where Nishar Mohammad was lying unconscious. He denied suggestion that accused persons were giving beatings to deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that accused persons fled away from the place of incident when family members of deceased Nishar Mohammad came at the spot. He denied suggestion that Nishar Mohammad died due to beatings given by accused persons. He denied suggestion that he deposed falsely in connivance with the accused persons. He denied suggestion that accused persons fled away from the place of incident when family members of deceased Nishar Mohammad came at the spot. He denied suggestion that Nishar Mohammad died due to beatings given by accused persons. He denied suggestion that he deposed falsely in connivance with the accused persons. He has stated that he along with his son was accompanying deceased Nishar Mohammad and his family members to the hospital and thereafter to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that police came in Malhotra hospital and inquired about the incident. He has stated that he told the police that deceased Nishar Mohammad was found lying unconscious. He has further stated that the age of the dog at the relevant time was 2/3 months. 11.4 PW5 Shamsher Singh has stated that he is truck driver by profession. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was known to him. He has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.30 PM after parking his truck he reached at home and took his dinner and went to his room to watch TV. He has stated that after 10/15 minutes he was called by his father PW4 Balbir Singh that Nishar Mohammad was injured and he was shifted to the hospital in the vehicle. He has stated that he took out Maruti car and Nishar Mohammad was taken to Malhotra hospital Baddi and thereafter he took injured to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that he remained in PGI Chandigarh till 17th July 2009 when deceased Nishar Mohammad died. He has stated that he does not know the reason of injury sustained by Nishar Mohammad. The witness was declared hostile. In cross examination he denied suggestion that Nishar Mohammad was sitting with his father at the relevant time. He also denied suggestion that co-accused Jaswant @ Rulda also came to his house. He denied suggestion that co-accused Rulda on seeing Nishar Mohammad who was sitting with his father immediately went back without having any conversation. He denied suggestion that after sometime Nishar Mohammad left their house. He denied suggestion that when he came out to urinate he had noticed Nishar Mohammad and co-accused Jaswant was holding the arms of each other and were altercating with each other. He denied suggestion that immediately thereafter co-accused Jaswant came to their house and told that somebody had given beatings to deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that when he came out to urinate he had noticed Nishar Mohammad and co-accused Jaswant was holding the arms of each other and were altercating with each other. He denied suggestion that immediately thereafter co-accused Jaswant came to their house and told that somebody had given beatings to deceased Nishar Mohammad. He denied suggestion that on seeing family members of deceased Nishar Mohammad the accused persons ran away from the place of incident. He denied suggestion that co-accused was having a pet dog. He denied suggestion that pet dog was used to run after the children. He denied suggestion that deceased Nishar Mohammad requested the accused persons to chain the dog. He denied suggestion that he does not know that some altercation took place between deceased Nishar Mohammad and accused persons. He denied suggestion that accused persons had threatened Nishar Mohammad with dire consequence. He denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely in connivance with accused persons to save them from punishment. He has admitted that all the family members of Nishar Mohammad and his father told to the police that deceased Nishar Mohammad was found lying unconscious and they were not aware who gave beatings. He denied suggestion that Nishar Mohammad was conscious at PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was not able to speak. 11.5 PW6 Harvinder Singh has stated that he is agriculturist by profession. He has stated that he has a vehicle bearing registration No. HP 12B-2228. He has further stated that vehicle is plied on contract basis in Sukan Factory. He has stated that co-accused Jaswant alias Rulda present in Court is known to him who is resident of his village. He has stated that his vehicle was not hired by co-accused Jaswant alias Rulda. He has stated that he did not take the accused to Punjab. The witness was declared hostile. He denied suggestion that on dated 10th July 2009 at 10 PM co-accused Rulda @ Jaswant called him to hire his vehicle. He denied suggestion that co-accused Rulda @ Jaswant told him that vehicle was required to drop his friends at Punjab. He denied suggestion that he went to Bhud barrier at 11 PM. He denied suggestion that he took co-accused Rulda alias Jaswant and his friends from Bhud barrier and dropped them at Nawanshar. He denied suggestion that co-accused Rulda @ Jaswant told him that vehicle was required to drop his friends at Punjab. He denied suggestion that he went to Bhud barrier at 11 PM. He denied suggestion that he took co-accused Rulda alias Jaswant and his friends from Bhud barrier and dropped them at Nawanshar. He denied suggestion that Chinda demanded Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) from co-accused Rulda alias Jaswant. He denied suggestion that co-accused Jaswant alias Rulda was having only Rs.1600/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred only) in his pocket and he had given Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) to Chinda and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to him as fare of taxi. He denied suggestion that Chinda told to co-accused Rulda alias Jaswant that by that time Nishar Mohammad might be dead. He denied suggestion that thereafter co-accused Rulda alias Jaswant directed Chinda to keep his mouth shut. He has stated that his vehicle was not hired by accused Jaswant alias Rulda. He has stated that his vehicle was hired by factory for carrying staff. 11.6 PW7 Karam Chand has stated that w.e.f. 16.8.2009 to May 2010 he remained posted as Incharge of Police Barrier Dharowala. He has stated that he had brought the record of entry of the vehicle maintained at the barrier. He has stated that on dated 14th July, 2009 vehicle No. HP12 B-2228 crossed the barrier from Nalagarh side. He has stated that vehicle was approaching towards Roper site at about 11.23 PM. He has stated that copy of the register Ext PW7/A is correct as per the original record. In cross examination he has admitted that the register was not signed by the Incharge of Police Barrier. He has admitted that there is cutting in the alleged entry and the same is not initialed. He has stated that there is no serial number in the entry made on 14th July, 2009. He has stated that entry was not signed by anyone. He denied suggestion that serial number has been fictitiously prepared at the instance of Investigating Officer Police Station Baddi. 11.7 PW8 Dr.Anil Kumar has stated that during July 2009 he remained posted as Medical Officer Malhotra Hospital Baddi. Medical Officer has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at 10.30 PM one Nishar Mohammad son of Mohammad Gafur resident of village Bhud was brought to the hospital in injured condition with history of medical injuries. 11.7 PW8 Dr.Anil Kumar has stated that during July 2009 he remained posted as Medical Officer Malhotra Hospital Baddi. Medical Officer has stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at 10.30 PM one Nishar Mohammad son of Mohammad Gafur resident of village Bhud was brought to the hospital in injured condition with history of medical injuries. Medical Officer has stated that he brought the original treatment record regarding treatment of the injured and he has stated that injured sustained various injuries i.e. (1) Lacerated wound on occipital region measuring 5x1 c.m.x ½ cm.m (2) Lacerated wound on temporal region left side measuring 2x1x1/2 cm. 3. (3) Left ear was measuring with grading 2 plus (4) Patient was not orientated to time and place and was semi-conscious. Medical Officer has further stated that X-ray of skull, chest and CT scan of head of deceased were advised which shows multiple hemorrhage and fracture in the left side. Medical Officer has stated that deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh after surgical operation. Medical Officer has stated that treatment record Ext PW8/A was signed by him which is correct as per original record. Medical Officer has stated that patient was unfit to give any statement. Medical Officer has stated that injuries upon body of deceased were possible by fall on hard surface on the same side. 11.8 PW9 Dr.S.P.Mandal has stated that he was posted as Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine PGI Chandigarh. Medical Officer has stated that on dated 18th July, 2009 at 10 AM he conducted post mortem of deceased Nishar Mohammad. Medical Officer has stated that dead body was brought by SI Dharam Singh vide request letter Ext.PW9/A along with inquest paper in duplicate Ext.PW2/A and Ext PW2/B which were signed by him. Medical Officer has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was brought to emergency ward at PGI Chandigarh on 14th July, 2009 at 1.55 AM and he died on 17th July 2009 at 1 PM. Medical Officer has further stated that the dead body was moderality built. Medical Officer has stated that rigor mortis present all over the body. Medical Officer has stated that blood stain found in left ear. Medical Officer has further stated that the dead body was moderality built. Medical Officer has stated that rigor mortis present all over the body. Medical Officer has stated that blood stain found in left ear. Medical Officer has stated that there was horizontal stitched lacerated wound 4.5 x 0.8 c.m. and x bone deep was present on left parietal region of the scalp started 13 c.m. above the lateral end of left eye brown and 7 c.m. medial from left ear pinna. The margins were irregular and have brown scabbed. Medical Officer has stated that horizontal stitched lacerated bone 3.2 x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep present on left parieto-occipital region of the scalp started 5 c.m. above upper portion of ear pinna. The margins were irregular and have brownish scabbed. Medical Officer has stated that stitched lacerated bone 1.5 x 0.9 c.m. into muscle deep present on left mastorid process of the skull. Medical Officer has stated that brown scabbed abrasion 2.8. x 1.2 c.m. present on left posterior auxiliary line 5.5 cm below the axilla. Medical Officer has further stated that brown scabbed abrasion 2x 1.c.m. was present on left side forehead 2.5 cm lateral end of left eye brown on internal examination. Medical Officer has further stated that subaponeurotic haematoma thin layer was present on left frontal, parietal, temporal region of the scalp and fissured fracture 15 cm of left frontal, parietal and left temporal bones started at lateral end of left eye orbit and above and medial. Medical Officer has stated that the left medial and posterior cranial fossa was fractured and subdural thin layer was present all over the brain. Medical Officer has stated that contusion and superficial laceration 3.5 x 3 cm present of inferior outer surface of left temporal lobe of brain and brain was congested and edematous. Medical Officer has further stated that both lungs congested and consolidated at places and stomach contain about 20 cc dark colour fluid and other internal organs were congested except mucous membrane of stomach small intestine and large intestine suprarenal. Medical Officer has stated that the cause of death was odeema of brain due to cranium and cerebral damage. Medical Officer has stated that injuries were antimortem and could be caused by blunt weapon. Medical Officer has stated that probable duration of injury and death was about 3/4 days and between death and post mortem 21 hours. Medical Officer has stated that the cause of death was odeema of brain due to cranium and cerebral damage. Medical Officer has stated that injuries were antimortem and could be caused by blunt weapon. Medical Officer has stated that probable duration of injury and death was about 3/4 days and between death and post mortem 21 hours. Medical Officer has stated that he also took photographs which are Ext PW1/B to Ext PW1/C and Ext PW9/B to Ext PW9/H. Medical officer has stated that he issued post mortem report. Medical Officer has stated that injuries could be caused by beatings. In cross examination Medical Officer denied suggestion that after stitching of the wound it was difficult to opine about the nature of injuries whether it was caused by sharp or blunt weapon. Self stated that stitched were removed at the time of post mortem examination. Medical Officer has stated that post mortem was done after removing stitches and after opening the skull. Medical Officer denied suggestion that he did not conduct the post mortem of deceased Nishar Mohammad. Medical Officer denied suggestion that he has given the opinion only as per the instance of the police officials. Medical Officer denied suggestion that the photographs were not obtained in his presence by him. Medical Officer denied suggestion that photographs were not developed in his presence. 11.9 PW10 HC Mohan Lal has stated that during the year 2009 he remained posted at Police Station Baddi. He has stated that on dated 13.7.2009 at about 11.25 PM information was received in the Police Station which was recorded in the computer by him vide entry No.46. He has stated that copy thereof is Ext PW10/A. He has stated that HC Avtar Singh after visiting Malhotra Hospital and verifying the facts returned back to Police Station and report No.5A was entered at 1.30 AM on dated 14.7.2009. He has stated that copy of such report is Ext.PW10/B. He has stated that on dated 14th July, 2009 information was received at Police Station from Police Post PGI Chandigarh that injured Nishar Mohammad was admitted in PGI Chandigarh and in this regard entry No.11 was entered in the computer which is Ext PW10/C. He has stated that thereafter statement of Gafur Ext PW1/A along with rukka Ext PW10/D was received in Police Station through Constable Avtar Singh and FIR Ext.PW10/E was recorded. In cross examination he denied suggestion that FIR was registered on 15th July 2009 in connivance with opposite party. 11.10 PW11 HC Avtar Singh has stated that for the last 1 ½ years he was posted at Baddi as Investigating Officer. He has stated that on receipt of information vide rapat Ext PW10/A he visited Malhotra Hospital Baddi where Nishar Mohammad was under treatment. He has stated that Nishar Mohammad had sustained injuries. He has stated that he moved Ext PW8/A to Medical Officer. He has stated that Medical Officer had opined that deceased Nishar Mohammad was not fit to give any statement. He has stated that thereafter injured was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that on his return rapat Ext PW10/B was entered in the computer. In cross examination he denied suggestion that he had come to brief and tutor the witnesses. 11.11 PW12 Rattan Kumar has stated that during the year 2009 he remained posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Baddi. He has stated that on dated 14th July, 2009 at about 5.30 PM statement of Gafur Ext PW10/A and rukka Ext PW10/D were written and signed by HC Avtar Singh on the basis of which FIR Ext PW10/E was recorded. In cross examination he denied suggestion that rukka was prepared on 15th July 2009 and the FIR was registered on the same day. 11.12 PW13 HC Satnam Singh has stated that since the year 2007 he was posted at Police Station Baddi. He has stated that on dated 14th July, 2009 present case file was handed over to him by SI Ratan Kumar. He has stated that thereafter on 15th July 2009 he visited the place of occurrence where deceased Nishar Mohammad was beaten and prepared spot map Ext PW13/A. He has stated that marginal notes were prepared and the same was signed by him. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the case file to SI Dharam Singh for further investigation. He has stated that he had also moved application Ext PW13/D to SMO PGI Chandigarh and thereupon doctor opined that injured was unfit for giving any statement. In cross examination he has admitted that the house of deceased Nishar Mohammad and his father Gafur are opposite to each other in a street. He has stated that he had also moved application Ext PW13/D to SMO PGI Chandigarh and thereupon doctor opined that injured was unfit for giving any statement. In cross examination he has admitted that the house of deceased Nishar Mohammad and his father Gafur are opposite to each other in a street. 11.13 PW14 HC Harpal Singh has stated that for the last three years he was posted as Investigating Officer Police Station Baddi. He has stated that on dated 14th July 2009 on the receipt of the information by rapat Ext PW10/A he visited PGI Chandigarh where Nishar Mohammad was admitted. He has stated that he moved application Ext PW14/A to the Station House Officer PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that Medical Officer has opined that the injured was unfit for giving any statement. He has stated that thereafter Gafur Mohammad father of deceased Nishar Mohammad given statement Ext PW1/A which he recorded as per his version. He has stated that thereafter he prepared rukka Ext PW10/D and sent the same to Police Station through Constable Avtar Singh. He has stated that FIR Ext.PW10/A was registered. In cross examination he denied suggestion that Ext PW11/A was written on 15th July 2009 after due deliberation with the complainant party. 11.14 PW15 SI Dharam Singh has stated that on dated 17th July 2009 HC Satnam Singh handed over case file to him. He has stated that deceased Nishar Mohammad was found dead at PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that he prepared inquest report in duplicate Ext PW4/A and Ext PW4/E which were signed by him. He has stated that thereafter post mortem report of deceased Nishar Mohammad was conducted. He has stated that photographs of the dead body are Ext PW1/B & C and Ext PW9/B to H. He has stated that on dated 18th July 2009 all the accused persons were arrested. He has stated that he had visited Punjab to apprehend the Chinda and his other two associates but they were not traced out. He has stated that during the investigation it was found that deceased Nishar Mohammad was beaten by all the accused persons present in the Court which resulted into death of deceased Nishar Mohammad. In cross examination he denied suggestion that as per investigation deceased was seen lying unconscious by the villagers. He has stated that during the investigation it was found that deceased Nishar Mohammad was beaten by all the accused persons present in the Court which resulted into death of deceased Nishar Mohammad. In cross examination he denied suggestion that as per investigation deceased was seen lying unconscious by the villagers. He denied suggestion that in connivance with the complainant party he falsely implicated the accused persons. He denied suggestion that statements of Balbir, Shammer and Harvinder were not recorded as per their versions. He denied suggestion that the statement of other persons were recorded in connivance with the complainant party. 11.15 PW16 Inspector Dharam Chand has stated that from July 2009 to April 2010 he remained posted as Station House Officer police Station Baddi. He has stated that on completion of the investigation he prepared the final report and submitted the same to the learned trial Court for trial. In cross examination he denied suggestion that false case has been registered against accused persons in connivance with the complainant party. 11.16 PW17 Dr. S Saddiqui has stated that from July 2009 to September 2009 he remained posted as SMO PGI Chandigarh. Medical Officer has stated that on dated 16th July 2009 he received application Ext PW13/B moved by Investigating Officer and at that time injured Nishar Mohammad was unfit to give any statement and his opinion is Ext PW17/A. On examination of deceased Nishar Mohammad Medical Officer observed that the alleged history of incident as disclosed was assault on dated 13th July 2009 at 10 PM in front of his home. Medical Officer has further stated that there was history of loss of consciousness vomiting and ear bleeding. Medical Officer has stated that on examination, the deceased was found conscious but drowsy. Medical Officer has further stated that scalp and face of the deceased had left parieto-occipital 6 cm laceration, left ear bleeding, left mastoid 3 cm laceration present, maxilla and mandible clavicle were NAD. Medical officer has stated that nature of injury was dangerous caused with blunt weapon and the injuries were fresh. Medical Officer issued MLC Ext PW17/B which was written and signed by him. Medical Officer has further stated that injuries as mentioned in MLC Ext PW17/B could be caused by way of beatings. Medical Officer has stated that when he examined deceased Nishar Mohammad both injuries were not stitched. Medical Officer issued MLC Ext PW17/B which was written and signed by him. Medical Officer has further stated that injuries as mentioned in MLC Ext PW17/B could be caused by way of beatings. Medical Officer has stated that when he examined deceased Nishar Mohammad both injuries were not stitched. Medical Officer has stated that injuries sustained by deceased Nishar Mohammad could be result of beatings by 2/3 persons. In cross examination Medical Officer denied suggestion that he deposed at the instance of the police officials qua the dangerous nature of the injuries. Medical Officer has stated that the depth of the injuries was not mentioned. The accused persons did not lead any evidence. Findings in Criminal Appeal No. 195 titled Jaswant Singh @ Rulda vs. State of H.P. Factor No. 1 fatal to the prosecution case 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh @ Rulda that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is accepted for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter. It is the case of prosecution that on dated 13th July 2009 at about 9.40 PM in village Bhood Tehsil Baddi District Solan the accused persons had beaten the deceased Nishar Mohammad son of Gafoor who died on dated 17th July 2009 on account of beatings given by accused persons. It is the case of prosecution that beating was given to deceased Nishar Mohammad son of Gafoor nearby the house of Balbir during the night period at 9.45 PM. As per prosecution the eye witnesses of the incident are PW1 Gafoor father of deceased, PW2 Sadeek Mohammad brother of deceased, PW3 Sher Mohammad brother of deceased and PW4 Balbir Singh independent witness. In present case PW1 Gafoor father of deceased, PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad brothers of the deceased have supported the case of prosecution but independent witness namely PW4 Balbir Singh alleged eye witness of the incident did not support the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution. Presence of PW4 as eye witness of incident is admitted by PW1 Gafoor in his testimony recorded as PW1. PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the interested witnesses being father and brothers of deceased and PW4 Balbir Singh is the independent witness. It is the case of prosecution that incident of beating to deceased took place nearby the house of PW4 Balbir Singh. PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the interested witnesses being father and brothers of deceased and PW4 Balbir Singh is the independent witness. It is the case of prosecution that incident of beating to deceased took place nearby the house of PW4 Balbir Singh. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW4 Balbir Singh. PW4 Balbir Singh has specifically stated that on dated 13th July, 2009 at about 9.45 PM he was present in his house and when he went to lock his main gate of the house he noticed that deceased Nishar Mohammad was lying unconscious in the street and was bleeding. PW4 has stated that he raised alarm and thereafter father and brothers of Nishar Mohammad along with other people from the village came at the spot. As per testimony of PW4 he was the first person who reached at the place of incident where deceased was lying unconscious. PW4 Balbir Singh did not state when he appeared in the witness box that accused persons had given beatings to deceased. He has stated in positive manner that accused and their family members have also reached at the spot after hearing the alarm. PWs 1 to 3 have stated that accused persons have fled away from the place of incident when they saw PWs 1 to 4. On the contrary PW4 Balbir Singh has stated that accused persons did not flee from the place of incident but came at the spot. Hence there is material contradiction between the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and PW4 qua the fact that accused persons fled away from the place of incident. Factor No. 2 fatal to the prosecution case 13 As per testimony of PW4 he was the first person who came at the spot of incident and when he came at the place of incident he saw deceased in injured condition and thereafter he raised alarm and when he raised alarm thereafter PWs 1 to 3 came at the spot. On the contrary PWs 1 to 3 have stated in positive manner that when they heard the noise then simultaneously they came at the spot. Hence there is material contradiction between the testimonies of PW4 and PWs 1 to 3 qua factum of arrival at the place of incident. This fact creates doubt in the mind of Court in view of two views available in present case. Hence there is material contradiction between the testimonies of PW4 and PWs 1 to 3 qua factum of arrival at the place of incident. This fact creates doubt in the mind of Court in view of two views available in present case. Factor No. 3 fatal to the prosecution case 14. As per testimony of PWs 1 to 3, when they reached at the spot the accused persons fled away from the place of incident. On the contrary as per testimony of PW4 Balbir Singh, he did not see accused persons running from the place of incident rather they came at the spot along with other villagers also. This fact creates doubt in the mind of Court in view of two views available in present case. Factor No. 4 fatal to the prosecution case 15. In present case prosecution did not record any disclosure statement of accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. No reason has been assigned by prosecution as to why prosecution did not record the disclosure statement of accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in present case in order to prove its case as alleged by the prosecution. Factor No. 5 fatal to the prosecution case 16. Even PW1 Gafoor in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has admitted the presence of Balbir Singh at the time of incident. Even in present case statement of deceased could not be recorded because as per the opinion of Medical Officer deceased was not in fit position to give his statement. It was held in case reported in (2005)9 SCC SC 765 (DB) titled Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was again held in case AIR1979SC 1382 titled State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulzarilal Tandon that suspicion however grave cannot take place of proof. (also see AIR 1984 SC 1622 titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, See : AIR 1983 SC 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others vs. the State of Gujarat See : AIR 1985 SC 1224 titled State of U.P. vs. Sukhbasi and others. It was held in case reported in AIR 1967SC520titledCharanSinghvs.TheStateofUP that the Court must guard against the danger of allowing conjecture or suspicion to take place of legal proof. (AlsoseeAIR1971SC1898 titled (1) Gian Mahtani and (2) Budhoo and others vs. State of Maharashtra). It was held in case reported in AIR 1967SC520titledCharanSinghvs.TheStateofUP that the Court must guard against the danger of allowing conjecture or suspicion to take place of legal proof. (AlsoseeAIR1971SC1898 titled (1) Gian Mahtani and (2) Budhoo and others vs. State of Maharashtra). It was held in case reported in 1998(2) S.L.J.1408 Shashi Paland others vs. State of HP that if two versions appear in prosecution evidence then version beneficial to the accused, should be adopted. Also see 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudarshan Singh, See 1995 (3) SLJ 1819 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Inder Jeet and others, See 1995(4) SLJ 2728 titled State of H.P. vs. Diwana and others. It was held by Apex Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 1320 of 1999 decided on 12th April, 2005 titled state of U.P. vs. Gambhir Singh and others that if two views are reasonably possible then one in favour of accused must be preferred. (Also see 2005(5) JT 553 titled State of U.P. vs. Gambhir Singhandothers) Factor No. 6 fatal to the prosecution case 17. It is the case of prosecution that incident took place during the night period at about 9.45 PM and during that time there was extremely dark. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that light was available at the place of incident. No reason has been assigned by prosecution as to how PWs 1 to 3 have seen the accused inflicting injuries upon the deceased during the night period despite the non-availability of light. This fact creates doubt in the mind of Court qua the testimonies of PWs1 to 3 relating to inflicting of injuries. Factor No. 7 fatal to the prosecution case 18. In present case weapon of offence through which injuries were inflicted upon the deceased was not produced nor exhibited in Court by the prosecuting agency which is also fatal to the prosecution. Weapon of attack was not recovered in present case as per disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Factor No. 8 fatal to the prosecution case 19. Even PW5 Shri Shamsher Singh did not support the prosecution case to the effect that injuries were inflicted upon the deceased in his presence and to the effect that accused persons hired his vehicle bearing No. HP-12B-2228 to drop them in Punjab. Factor No. 8 fatal to the prosecution case 19. Even PW5 Shri Shamsher Singh did not support the prosecution case to the effect that injuries were inflicted upon the deceased in his presence and to the effect that accused persons hired his vehicle bearing No. HP-12B-2228 to drop them in Punjab. Factor No. 9 fatal to the prosecution case 20. Even it is proved on record that FIR No. 112 dated 14th July, 2009 Ext.PW10/E was recorded as per information given by Gafoor son of Ali Bakshi. We have carefully perused the contents of FIR Ext.PW10/E placed on record. In FIR Ext.PW10/E placed on record names of co-accused namely Sadeek Khan and Faujia wife of Sadeek Khan did not mention. No reason has been assigned as to why names of other co-accused namely Sadeek Khan and Faujia did not mention by Gafoor when his statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the contrary it has been specifically mentioned in FIR Ext.PW10/E that some other two persons were involved in the commission of offence and names of some other two persons did not disclose in FIR. This fact creates doubt in the mind of Court qua the testimony of PW1 Gafoor. Findings in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2011, titled State of H.P. vs. Sadeek Khan 21. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-appellant that learned trial Court has illegally acquitted co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia, wife of Sadeek Khan in present case contrary to proved facts placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is the case of prosecution that PW1 Gafoor PW2 Sadeek Mohammad PW3 Sher Mohammad and PW4 Balbir Singh were present when accused persons have committed the criminal offence. In present case PW4 Balbir Singh independent eye witness has stated in positive manner that he did not see accused persons inflicting injuries upon deceased. On the contrary PW1 Gafoor PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad have stated in positive manner that accused persons were inflicting injuries on the deceased. There is material contradiction between the testimonies of PWs1 to 3 who are father and brothers of deceased and PW4 independent eye witness. On the contrary PW1 Gafoor PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad have stated in positive manner that accused persons were inflicting injuries on the deceased. There is material contradiction between the testimonies of PWs1 to 3 who are father and brothers of deceased and PW4 independent eye witness. Since two views have emerged in present case we are of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to take the view favourable to the accused persons. We hold that testimonies of PW1 Gafoor, PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammd are not sufficient to convict the accused persons in present case because PW1 Gafoor PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad are not independent witnesses but are interested witnesses being father and brothers of deceased and we also hold that these witnesses are interested in conviction of accused persons being father and brothers of deceased. 22. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that in view of testimonies of PWs1 to 3 accused persons fled away from the place of incident and their conduct is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Although PW1 Gafoor father of deceased, PW2 Sadeek Mohammad and PW3 Sher Mohammad brothers of deceased have stated that accused persons fled away from the place of incident when villagers came at the spot but on the contrary another independent eye witness PW4 Balbir Singh has stated in positive manner that accused persons namely Jaswant @ Rulda, Sadeek Khan and Faujia did not flee from the place of incident but came along with other villagers at the place of incident. Hence in view of contradictory testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and PW4 qua running away of accused persons from the spot it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused persons in view of material contradiction between the testimonies of independent witness and interested witnesses in present case. It is well settled principle of law that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It is well settled principle of law that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. (See (2013)2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiahandan other vs. State See 2011 (11)SCC 666 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar, See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra vs. State of Rajasthan, See 2012 (1) SCC 602 State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta.) It is also well settled principle of law (i) That Appellant Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable. (ii) That while dealing with a judgment of acquittal Appellant Court must consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of learned trial Court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable. (iii) That Appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, learned trial Court failed to take into considered any admissible fact and (iv) That learned trial Court failed to take into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ramand another vs. State of U.P., See (2002)3 SCC 57 , titled Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, See (2003)1 SCC 398 Raghunath vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 2007 SC 3075 State of U.P. vs. Ram Veer Singh and others, See AIR 2008 SC 2066 (2008)11 SCC 186 S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Raddy (D) by his LRs. & others. Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukhand others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009)10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another vs. State, (2009)16 SCC 98 Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others vs. State of A.P. and (2010)2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.) 23. Keeping in view the above stated facts and case law cited supra, Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2011, titled Jaswant Singh @ Rulda vs. State of H.P. is accepted and conviction of appellant Jaswant Singh @ Rulda passed by learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC is set aside by way of giving benefit of doubt. The convicted be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Warrant of release be issued forthwith by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). The convicted be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Warrant of release be issued forthwith by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2011, titled State of H.P. vs. Sadeek Khan and another is dismissed. We hold that acquittal of co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia wife of Sadeek Khan by learned trial Court is in accordance with law and we also hold that learned trial Court did not commit any illegality by way of acquitting co-accused Sadeek Khan and co-accused Faujia in present case. We further hold that two views have emerged in present case and we adopt the view favourable to the accused persons in view of rulings cited supra. Both appeals are disposed of. Record of learned trial Court be transmitted forthwith and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Certified copy of judgment will be placed in criminal file of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2011, titled State of H.P. vs. Sadeek Khan and other.