Judgment : Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 4.12.2010 rendered by learned Special Judge, Chamba in sessions trial No. 12-S/7 of 2010, whereby the accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months each under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Krishna Devi filed an application, Ext.PW1/A dated 4.6.2009 that her husband Paras Ram was missing since 1.6.2009. On 7.6.2009, PW1 Krishna Devi filed another application, Ext.PW1/B and suspected that the accused Sumit Dhillon was behind missing of her husband since she had some dispute about sharing of commission of the property dealings with her son. Thereafter, FIR No.62/09 under Section 364 of the Indian was registered at Police Station, Dharampur. A decomposed dead body partly burnt was recovered at a place known as Danoghat. FIR No.86/2009, dated 4.6.2009 was registered at Police Station, Baddi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. PW1 Krishna Devi had suspicion on accused Sumit Dhillon, who was called from her parental house at Moga. On 6.6.2009, she came to Dharampur. On 7.6.2009, she was called to Police Station, Dharampur and was arrested. 4. It has come to the notice of the police that she had made telephonic calls to the co-accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder Kumar and committed murder with the help of these co-accused. Statement of Ms. Anup Gill, daughter of the accused Sumit Dhillon, was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. On disclosure statement of the accused, Gandasi and piece of hockey stick and Alto car were recovered. The police also lifted blood stains from the house of the accused Sumit Dhillon at Thadey Ka Thakurdwara. Statement of Ms. Anup Gill, daughter of the accused Sumit Dhillon, was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. On disclosure statement of the accused, Gandasi and piece of hockey stick and Alto car were recovered. The police also lifted blood stains from the house of the accused Sumit Dhillon at Thadey Ka Thakurdwara. One broom, black coloured towel, two pillow covers and T-shirt were taken in possession and sealed vide memos, Ext.PW7/A to Ext. PW7/D. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased by PW30 Dr. Manoj Kumar vide post mortem report, Ext.PW30/D. PW31 Dr. J.R. Gaur after visiting the spot collected the blood stains from the spot and prepared his report, Ext.PW31/E. He had taken photographs on the spot, Ext.PW31/C-1 to Ext.PW31/C-30. PW37, Dr. Minakashi Mahajan with the help of Dr. Sanjiv Kumar and his team of CFSL, Chandigarh examined the photographs of the deceased and compared these photographs with dead body and carried out facial reconstruction and issued report, Ext.PW37/H. The blood samples of PW44, Dropati Devi and her husband Shoba Ram were taken by PW45, Dr. Uday Thakur for DNA profiling and report of DNA dated 20.6.2009 was obtained. The spot maps were prepared. According to the prosecution, the deceased Paras Ram was murdered by the accused in furtherance of their common intention and his dead body was disposed off and burnt by sprinkling petrol at Daonghat. The dead body was taken in a alto car owned by accused Sumit Dhillon. The blood stains present in the house of the accused Sumit Dhillon were washed and wiped off with the help of towel. The recoveries were effected. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The prosecution examined as many as fifty witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 4.12.2010, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 6. Mr. Anup Chitkara, Mr. Keshav S. Thakur and Ms. Bhawana Dutta, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, the appeal. 6. Mr. Anup Chitkara, Mr. Keshav S. Thakur and Ms. Bhawana Dutta, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. They also contended that the deceased Paras Ram had left the house on 30.5.2009 and the FIR was registered only on 7.6.2009. They also pointed out variance in the contents of complaints Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B. They also contended that the dead body was not identifiable. 7. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2010. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 9. PW1, Krishna Devi, wife of the deceased, deposed that on 30.5.2009, her husband went to the house of father of her daughter-in-law, namely, Kirpa Ram at Village Chanogari. On 1.6.2009, at about 2.00 P.M., her husband contacted her on telephone saying that he was at Dharampur. He asked her whether some articles were to be brought from the market or not. She asked him to visit the house of Mast Ram, father-in-law of her niece at Village Banjani as there was ‘Jagran’. He visited the house of Mast Ram. Her husband did not return on 2.6.2009. She asked her son Inder Singh and brother-in-law Palak Ram to locate her husband. They tried to contact him on his mobile, but it was switched off. According to her, the mobile number of her husband was 98571-83732. There was marriage in her village at the house of Pradhan, Promila Devi. They thought that her husband might be present in the marriage. However, on 3.6.2009, when he did not come back, they tried to locate him in relations. His whereabouts were not known. On 4.6.2009, she moved an application, Ext.PW1/A to the SHO, Police Station Dharampur regarding missing of her husband. Her son Inder Singh was working as property dealer at Dharampur. Accused Sumit Dhillon was also working as partner with her son Inder Singh. According to her, perhaps there was dispute between her son Inder Singh and accused Sumit Dhillon with respect to payments in the business. She was told by her son that for the last 10-12 days, some dispute was going on with accused Sumit Dhillon. Accused Sumit Dhillon was also working as partner with her son Inder Singh. According to her, perhaps there was dispute between her son Inder Singh and accused Sumit Dhillon with respect to payments in the business. She was told by her son that for the last 10-12 days, some dispute was going on with accused Sumit Dhillon. Since her husband did not come back, hence the matter was reported to the police on 7.6.2009 and the accused Sumit Dhillon was suspected for disappearance of her husband. She moved an application, Ext.PW1/B to the police to this effect. They received phone call from one Harmeet Bawa on 5.6.2009, who was known to the accused Sumit Dhillon. He told her son to come to Moga along with his mother and sister so that the matter could be settled. She was told by her relative, Kirpa Ram that when her husband was in his house, he was receiving repeated calls from accused Sumit Dhillon and he was disturbed. According to her, her husband used to wear spectacles. She identified the burnt spectacles, Ext.P1belonging to her husband. She could not identify the mobile phone, Ext.P2. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the date mentioned at the top of the application moved by her was not in her hand. She admitted that no writing with respect to business of property dealing between her son and accused Sumit Dhillon was made in her presence. No dealing of selling or buying of property was made in her presence. She visited the residence of accused Sumit Dhillon once, but she was regular visitor of her house. She was not aware about the amount due between her son and the accused Sumit Dhillon as no such transaction took place in her presence. She was told by her son about some dispute with respect to commission of the property dealing with accused Sumit Dhillon. However, she did not remember the date when her son told about the dispute. She had told the SHO, Police Station Dharampur that a phone call was received from her husband on 1.6.2009. She was confronted with her statement, Ext.PW1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. According to her, village Banjani was about 4-5 kms away from her house. However, she did not remember the date when her son told about the dispute. She had told the SHO, Police Station Dharampur that a phone call was received from her husband on 1.6.2009. She was confronted with her statement, Ext.PW1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. According to her, village Banjani was about 4-5 kms away from her house. On 2.6.2009, when her husband did not come back to house, she had not inquired from the house of Kirpa Ram either on telephone or by sending any persons there. However, on 3.6.2009, the inquiry was made. Her son and her brother-in-law did not visit the house of Kirpa Ram to locate her husband. She had written in application, Ext.PW1/A that her husband had gone to the house of Kirpa Ram on 30.5.2009. She was again confronted with application, Ext.PW1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. She had not stated in the application, Ext.PW1/A that her husband was repeatedly receiving calls from the accused Sumit Dhillon. Her son told her about the dispute with accused Sumit Dhillon in respect of property dealing either on 6.6.2009 or 7.6.2009 before registration of the FIR. 10. PW2, Inder Singh, deposed that deceased Paras Ram was his father. On 30.5.2009, he went to the house of Kirpa Ram father-in-law of his elder brother at Village Chanogari. According to him, he stayed there till 31.5.2009. On 1.6.2009, he contacted him on telephone between 10-11 A.M. and informed that he was visiting house of Mast Ram at village Banjani to attend ‘Jagran’. He returned to his house in the evening and on 2.6.2009, he attended Barat at village Nauni. He stayed at village Thadi on 2.6.2009 in the house of his relative. On 3.6.2009, he received a telephonic call from his mother that the mobile phone of his father was switched off. He also tried to contact his father repeatedly on his mobile No.98571-83732, but it was found switched off. His mother asked him to inquire about his father at village Banjani. He along with his uncle Palak Ram visited the house of Mast Ram at Village Banjani. On inquiry, Mast Ram disclosed that his father after taking meals had left his house on 1.6.2009 about 4.30-5.00 P.M.. According to him, there were several marriages in their relations, so they tried to locate his father in their relations, but he was not located. On inquiry, Mast Ram disclosed that his father after taking meals had left his house on 1.6.2009 about 4.30-5.00 P.M.. According to him, there were several marriages in their relations, so they tried to locate his father in their relations, but he was not located. When they did not trace out his father, he along with his mother went to the Police Station, Dharampur and lodged a missing report vide application, Ext.PW1/A on 4.6.2009. According to him, he was working as Teacher in Nancy Senior Secondary Public Shool, Nanital, for the last 2 ½ months. Earlier, he was working as property dealer at Dharampur. He and accused Sumit Dhillon became partners during May or June 2008. He further deposed that the dealing were cordial for six months, thereafter, the accused Sumit Dhillon started misappropriating commission of the property dealings, which led to altercation between them. Thereafter, they orally dissolved their partnership and she left for her house at Moga. Before leaving for Moga, she threatened him with dire consequences. He could not tell the exact date of altercation between them. Before altercation, the accused Sumit Dhillon requested him to marry her since she was divorcee, but he refused as he was married person having two children. She became inimical towards him on this ground. When they could not trace out his father, on 5.6.2009, they received a telephonic call from Hardeep Bawa on his mobile No.98571-83730 from telephone No.094638-34404, who asked him to come to Moga along with his mother and sister, everything would be settled with accused Sumit Dhillon and his father would be recovered. He was called to the house of accused Sumit Dhillon. Accused Sumit Dhillon was having very good relations with his family. She used to visit their house and they also used to visit her rented house since she used to treat his father as her own father and his parents also used to treat her as daughter. The accused Sumit Dhillon was living in a rented accommodation at Thandey Ka Thakurdwara. They lodged FIR on the ground of suspicion on 7.6.2009 vide application, Ext.PW1/A. On 1.7.2009, he handed over to the Investigating Officer three photographs of his deceased father in the presence of Chaand Kishore vide memo, Ext.PW2/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not having any licence of the property dealing at the relevant time. They lodged FIR on the ground of suspicion on 7.6.2009 vide application, Ext.PW1/A. On 1.7.2009, he handed over to the Investigating Officer three photographs of his deceased father in the presence of Chaand Kishore vide memo, Ext.PW2/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not having any licence of the property dealing at the relevant time. Initially he was doing business of property consultant and later on he came in contact with accused Sumit Dhillon. He was told by her that she was having licence for property dealing. He volunteered that he was not having any permanent office. He was not having any account for property dealing and no such return was filed with any department. No such partnership deed was executed between him and accused Sumit Dhillon. He entered into the partnership with accused Sumit Dhillon in the month of May and June 2008. They remained partners upto 1st week of May 2009. During the partnership, they sold 2-3 properties. He did not remember names of buyers and sellers. Neither such record was prepared and nor produced before the police. The dispute arose with respect to the sharing of commission of above said deals. He did not remember the exact amount of sale. He could not tell about the profit earned by their partnership concerned. He volunteered that the accused Sumit Dhillon was inimical towards his father since she had offered him to sell 41 bighas of land owned by his father near Naina Tikkar and this offer was declined by him and his father. He had not produced any revenue record pertaining to the land owned by his father near Naina Tikkar. He did not remember the date and month when the accused Sumit Dhillon made the offer. However, it was made in the year 2009. He could not narrate the incident to the police since they were busy in tracing out his father. He never reported to any authority about misappropriation of commission by Sumit Dhillon. Accused Sumit Dhillon never gave him threatening call from Moga, however, one Harmeet Bawa telephoned him from Patiala. He admitted that he had matrimonial dispute with his wife. He also admitted that he was directed by the court to pay maintenance to his wife. 11. PW3, Kirpa Ram, deposed that marriage of his son Virender was scheduled to be held on 17/18.6.2009. He admitted that he had matrimonial dispute with his wife. He also admitted that he was directed by the court to pay maintenance to his wife. 11. PW3, Kirpa Ram, deposed that marriage of his son Virender was scheduled to be held on 17/18.6.2009. There was a ceremony to cut fuel wood in his house on 31.5.2009 as per custom. The deceased Paras Ram also participated in the ceremony. During his stay in his house, Paras Ram received repeated telephonic calls on his mobile phone. On his asking, he was told by him that the accused Sumit Dhillon was calling him on his mobile phone. He also told him that she was working with his son and due to receipt of repeated telephonic calls, he was disturbed. He left his house in the morning of 1.6.2009 and he came to Solan by bus. On 3.6.2009, he received a telephonic call from the house of the deceased that he did not reach the house. Thereafter, on the same day, he visited the house of deceased Paras Ram. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know the name of Pandit, who performed the ceremony of cutting of fuel wood. He volunteered that the date and time of cutting fuel wood was prefixed by the Pandit and as per the direction of the Pandit, the ceremony was performed. He received information qua missing of deceased Paras Ram on 3.6.2009. Inder Singh had not come to his house to know whereabouts of Paras Ram. According to him, the deceased left his house by bus on 1.6.2009 at 7.15 A.M.. He had left for his own house. The distance between his house and that of deceased Paras Ram was about 35-40 kms. 12. PW4, Parmod Thakur, deposed that he was running a Karyana shop at Sukhi Johari, Dharampur. Accused Sumit Dhillon used to purchase goods and recharge her mobile from his shop. On 1.6.2009, she visited his shop at about 5.00 P.M./5.30 P.M., and recharged her mobile phone No.98721-86074 for Rs.100/-. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not maintained the record of recharge and he was not legally bound to maintain the recharge record. He did not remember the number of recharges made by him on that day. He could not tell the name of any person since local person used to come for recharge. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not maintained the record of recharge and he was not legally bound to maintain the recharge record. He did not remember the number of recharges made by him on that day. He could not tell the name of any person since local person used to come for recharge. He had stated to the police that entry qua recharge of Sumit Dhillon was made in the register, however, this register was destroyed after 2-3 days. 13. PW5, Jagdish, deposed that he was member of Block Development Committee, Dharampur since the year 2006. On 16.6.2009, he was called by Dharampur police. Mehar Singh, vice-President, Gram Panchayat, Kulhari, was also present there. Alto Car No.HP-14A-3853 was handed over to the police by Kuldip along with its documents and the same was seized vide memo, Ext.PW5/A. On the same day, disclosure statement of the accused Gurdeep Singh, Ext.PW5/B was recorded by the police in his presence and Mehar Singh to the effect that he had thrown the Gandasi near Surajpur and he could get the same recovered. Similarly, the accused Devinder made a disclosure statement, Ext.PW5/C that he had thrown a piece of hockey stick near Surajpur and he could get it recovered. 14. PW6, Mehar Singh, deposed the manner in which the disclosure statements of accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder, Ext.PW5/B and Ext.P5/C were recorded by the Police. He also deposed the manner in which the Gandasi and a piece of hockey were recovered at the instance of accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder. 15. PW7, Promila, deposed that on 16.6.2009, she along with Tara Chand remained associated in the investigation of the case. They went to the house of Rajinder Goyal at Thade Ka Thakurdwara. FSL team was also present there. The lock of the house hired by accused Sumit Dhillon was broken. The police lifted blood stains near the door, water tank, plastic stand of fridge, floor etc vide memo Ext.PW7/A. One room was also seized vide memo, Ext.PW7/B. One black coloured towel was also recovered which was also sealed with seal impression “R” vide memo, Ext.PW7/C. The pillow cover and one T-shirt were recovered from the washing machine vide Ext.PW7/D. The seal after use was handed over to her vide memo, Ext.PW7/E. In cross-examination, she deposed that she had not brought the seal since the same was not summoned. 16. 16. PW8, Abhishek Gupta, deposed that he was posted as JTO, Commercial BSNL since 15.5.2009. A request letter, Ext.PW8/A was received from S.P. Solan to supply subscriber name and call details of Cell phone No.94185-78972. He had taken the printouts of call details regarding above cell number w.e.f. 25.5.2009 to 9.6.2009 from the computer installed in his office vide Ext.PW8/B. There was no technical snag in the system as well as the computer installed in his office. The subscriber name and address of its phone was not supplied by him. According to him, it may be provided by some other agency. 17. PW9, Navjeet Sangwan, deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer, Aircel, Shimla, since 15.5.2009. On the request of police, he had supplied the call details pertaining to cell Nos.98571-83732 and 98571-83730 w.e.f. 1.6.2009 to 9.6.2009 vide Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B respectively. The address of the subscriber of both the cell phone numbers was Inder Singh, son of Sh. Paras Ram-II, village Chhatera, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.. He supplied the address vide Ext.PW9/D. 18. PW10, Jia Lal, deposed that he was running a Hotel at Barotiwala for the last four months. Earlier, he was running a hotel at Surajpur. The police contacted him on 15 or 16.6.2009 at his Dhaba. He did not remember the exact date. The police took him at a place away from his dhaba from where one broken piece of hockey and gandasi were recovered. He again deposed that the same were already recovered by the police before taking him to the spot. The police had already visited the spot. He was declared hostile. 19. PW11, Anup Gill, is daughter of accused Sumit Dhillon. She deposed that she did not know deceased Paras Ram. She knew Inder Singh since he was teacher in her school and had taught her in 4th standard. According to her, since her school was closed on 22.5.2009, she left for Punjab on 23.5.2009. She returned from Punjab on 5.6.2009. She could not say anything about the murder of Paras Ram. She was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that she was produced by the police before learned JMIC, Kasauli. She admitted that before recording her statement, learned JMIC Kasauli asked her certain questions and those were replied by her. She could not say anything about the murder of Paras Ram. She was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that she was produced by the police before learned JMIC, Kasauli. She admitted that before recording her statement, learned JMIC Kasauli asked her certain questions and those were replied by her. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, she deposed that when she found that her mother was being tortured by the police, she agreed to make the statement before the court as per the wish of police. The police told her to make statement in the court as stated in the police Station in case she wanted welfare of her mother. 20. PW12, Pawan Kumar, deposed that he was running a taxi bearing registration No.HP-12-B-8753. According to him, accused Gurdeep Singh was known to him. About one year back, though he did not remember the date and month, he was at Manali. The accused Gurdeep contacted him on his mobile phone and demanded vehicle somewhere near a bridge at Baddi. He disclosed that he had some work at Dharampur and he intended to visit Dharampur. He telephonically contacted Munshi Kala Ram, Taxi Union, Baddi who provided the vehicle to accused Gurdeep Singh. In cross-examination, he deposed that his vehicle was registered with private number. He also admitted that private vehicle could not be used as Taxi. He admitted that neither accused Gurdeep Singh was related to him nor he was his friend. He volunteered that he was familiar with him. He also admitted that in case of use of private vehicle as Taxi, the police used to impose the fine. He also admitted that sometime police used to take their vehicle without paying any charges. 21. PW13, Dhani Ram, deposed that on 21.6.2009 he visited Dharampur. Thereafter, he along with his relatives visited Daonghat. Accused Sumit Dhillon identified the place where dead body of Paras Ram was thrown by them and was set on fire. A memo, Ext.PW13/A was prepared in this regard. 22. PW14, Devi Ram, deposed that on 21.6.2009, at about 1.00 P.M., he was present in his shop in his village. The Police came there and they requested him to accompany them. Bir Singh was also accompanying them. He again deposed that they visited Daonghat and Bir Singh was already there. A memo, Ext.PW13/A was prepared in this regard. 22. PW14, Devi Ram, deposed that on 21.6.2009, at about 1.00 P.M., he was present in his shop in his village. The Police came there and they requested him to accompany them. Bir Singh was also accompanying them. He again deposed that they visited Daonghat and Bir Singh was already there. Accused Devinder Kumar was also accompanying the police. The police took photographs in connection with murder and it was disclosed by the police that a dead body was recovered from the place about 15 days back. He had seen the place of occurrence. There was nothing on the record. He was declared hostile. In crossexamination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the memo, Ext.PW14/A was prepared on the spot. He denied preparation of recovery memo, Ext.PW14/B. He denied that the accused Gurdeep Singh produced his pants and shirt to the police in his presence. He further denied that the memo, Ext.PW14/C was prepared in his presence. His statement was not recorded by the police. 23. PW15 Hari Dass and PW16 S. Bhanot are formal witnesses. 24. PW17, Palak Ram, deposed that on 21.6.2009, he was called by the police to Police Station Dharampur. Accused Gurdeep Singh was also present in the Police Station along with witness Prem Chand. They all proceeded to village Daonghat where accused Gurdeep Singh identified the place where the dead body of the deceased Paras Ram was burnt. Memo, Ext.PW17/A was prepared to this effect. 25. PW18, Durga Dutt, deposed that he was running a tea shop at Ratta bridge near Baddi for the last 3-4 years. According to him, about one year back, though he did not remember the date and month, accused Gurdeep Singh visited his tea stall and had taken his mobile phone bearing No.98162-55591 for giving some missed call. Thereafter, he returned the mobile phone to him. After some days, police visited and informed about the aforesaid fact. They also checked his mobile phone. A memo, Ext.PW18/A was prepared to this effect. Gurdeep Singh had taken his mobile phone to inquire about NOC of his truck. 26. PW19, Constable Nirmal Singh proved Rapat No.15 and 28 vide Ext.PW19/A and Ext.PW19/B. 27. PW20, Noor Mohd., deposed that his wife Rani was vice-President of Gram Panchayat, Nandpur. They also checked his mobile phone. A memo, Ext.PW18/A was prepared to this effect. Gurdeep Singh had taken his mobile phone to inquire about NOC of his truck. 26. PW19, Constable Nirmal Singh proved Rapat No.15 and 28 vide Ext.PW19/A and Ext.PW19/B. 27. PW20, Noor Mohd., deposed that his wife Rani was vice-President of Gram Panchayat, Nandpur. On 3.6.2009, at about 7.00/8.00 P.M., Ram Lal informed him telephonically that something was lying partially burnt in the bushes near his house, which could be monkey and something else. He visited the spot and noticed that a decomposed dead body partly burnt was lying on the spot. The police started carrying out investigation of the case and they were told that it was body of a human being. Many people gathered on the spot. The police called the doctor and post mortem of the body was conducted on the spot. Inquest report, Ext.PW20/A was prepared. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to them for cremation, vide Ext.PW20/B. Thereafter, the body was cremated by the side of the road. On 3.6.2009, two spectacles partly burnt and some pieces of mobile phone, which were burnt with the dead body, were also seized by the police vide memo, Ext.PW20/C. Spectacles partly burnt were two in number. 28. PW21, Dev Raj, deposed that Shiv Singh handed over documents of his vehicle to the police which were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW21/A. 29. PW22, Rajinder Singh Goyal, deposed that he had three storeyed house at Thade Ka Thakurdwara. He had rented out the ground floor of the house consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, latrine and bath room to the accused Sumit Dhillon. The rent was Rs.25,00/- per month. He used to stay at Panchkula, however, sometime he used to visit the house. 30. PW23, Shiv Singh, deposed that he was plying an Indica Car No HP-12-B-9403 as Taxi, which was registered in the Taxi Union in the name of his father. On 1.6.2009, he was present in the Taxi Union, Baddi. At about 3.30 P.M., Clerk of the Union, Kala Ram gave a call and he contacted him. He told him that the taxi was required for Dharampur and fare was Rs.1000/-. He gave him mobile number of Gurdeep Singh. He contacted on the mobile phone supplied by Kala Ram. Gurdeep Singh told him to come to Ratta Pul on Sai Road, Baddi. He told him that the taxi was required for Dharampur and fare was Rs.1000/-. He gave him mobile number of Gurdeep Singh. He contacted on the mobile phone supplied by Kala Ram. Gurdeep Singh told him to come to Ratta Pul on Sai Road, Baddi. Thereafter, he visited Ratta Pul, where the accused Gurdeep Singh was present. They took tea at nearby tea stall and waited for another person. Thereafter, two persons came there on a motorcycle. After dropping accused Devinder Kumar, rider of the motorcycle returned back. Both the accused boarded the taxi and they proceeded to Dharampur. His vehicle was refueled with diesel at Diesel Pump Nanakpur. The payment of Rs.400/- was paid by the accused Gurdeep Singh. At about. 7.30 P.M., they reached at Dharampur. Accused Gurdeep Singh took his vehicle towards left side of the Dharampur at distance of half kilometre. Thereafter, the above said two persons left his vehicle with promise to come after 15-20 minutes. He was told that the balance amount of fare shall be paid on return. He waited for some time. Thereafter, he slept. He woke up at 9.00 P.M.. Thereafter, he rang up Gurdeep Singh on mobile from his mobile number. Accused Gurdeep Singh directed him to come to Sukhi Johari Chowk on telephone. Thereafter, he went to Sukhi Johari. Accused Gurdeep asked him to bring petrol in the bisleri bottle from petrol pump, Dharampur. He again called Gurdeep Singh from Sukhi Johari Chowk on his mobile and the phone was attended by some lady. He did not remember the mobile number of accused Gurdeep Singh. He received the call of accused Gurdeep Singh, who told him that they would come in their own vehicle after some time. After some time, accused Gurdeep Singh came in Alto Car along with other person. He had not seen other persons sitting in the car since the glasses were shut. Accused Gurdeep Singh directed him to follow the car. He started his car and by the time they left. He proceeded towards Kalka. He could not locate the vehicle. Thereafter, he rang up on the mobile of Gurdeep Singh. He was told to wait near Haripur gate at Barotiwala. He reached Barotiwala, near Haripur Gurudwara gate. After some time, he again rang up accused Gurdeep Singh and he was told that they were coming within 2-4 minutes. He proceeded towards Kalka. He could not locate the vehicle. Thereafter, he rang up on the mobile of Gurdeep Singh. He was told to wait near Haripur gate at Barotiwala. He reached Barotiwala, near Haripur Gurudwara gate. After some time, he again rang up accused Gurdeep Singh and he was told that they were coming within 2-4 minutes. They reached at 11.45 P.M. by Alto car. He handed over the bottle of petrol to accused Gurdeep Singh and thereafter, he paid him balance fare of Rs.700/- including price of petrol, i.e. Rs.100/-. He left for his own house and accused Gurdeep Singh left for his destination. He was also declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he could not say about the presence of the accused Devinder, one girl Anup Gill, Sumit Dhillon in the Alto Car. He volunteered that he had not seen them in the alto car. He had not seen the accused Sumit Dhillon sitting with her daughter Anup Gill on the rear seat of Alto Car. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he admitted that his vehicle bearing private number could not be registered with taxi union. He admitted that the Alto car used by Gurdeep Singh was having black glasses. 31. PW24, Kala Singh, deposed that on 1.6.2009, at 3.30 P.M., the vehicle of Shiv Singh was sent by him to Ratta near Vardhman factory. He received a telephonic call from one Joginder Singh, who told him that the vehicle was required for going to Dharampur and he told him to charge Rs.1000/-. He was declared hostile. 32. PW25, Shyam Lal, deposed that on 3.6.2009, at about 6.00 A.M., he had gone to answer the call of nature. Something like dead body of a person was lying in partly burnt condition towards valley side of the road. He returned back from the place and called his uncle Ram Lal. Ram Lal called the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat after visiting the place. Noor Mohd. called the police. After verifying on the spot, they came to know that it was dead body of a human being. The police visited the spot same day after some time. The police called the doctor and post mortem was conducted on the spot. The inquest report Ext.PW20/A was prepared. The dead body thereafter was handed over to Noor Mohd. called the police. After verifying on the spot, they came to know that it was dead body of a human being. The police visited the spot same day after some time. The police called the doctor and post mortem was conducted on the spot. The inquest report Ext.PW20/A was prepared. The dead body thereafter was handed over to Noor Mohd. vide memo, Ext.PW20/B. According to him, since the dead body was unclaimed, it was cremated by the villagers. 33. PW26, Tula Ram, deposed that deceased Paras Ram was known to him. According to him, deceased Paras Ram visited his shop on 1.6.2009 at about 6.45 P.M.. He remained in his shop for about 10 minutes and thereafter, he left his shop. 34. PW27, Manjeet Singh, deposed that he was employed as Salesman on Jai Hindi Petrol Pump at Dharampur for the last 3-4 years. On 1.6.2009, when he along with his wife were going to Sukhi Johari, Paras Ram met them near a small bridge. Deceased Paras Ram was going to Kanda Side. He met them at about 7.00 P.M.. They exchanged greeting. 35. PW28, Arun Kumar, deposed that he was proprietor of Kaushal Enterprises Haripur Sandauli, Baddi. He was selling petrol and diesel on his outlet. Mohinder Singh was present on duty on 1.6.2009 as per his record. He proved copy of the attendance register for the month of June, 2009 vide Ext.PW28/A. 36. PW29, Mohinder Singh, deposed that he was working as Salesman in the outlet owned by Kaushal Enterprises for the last five years. On 1.6.2009, he was performing his night duty in the petrol pump. On 1.6.2009, police came once or twice to petrol pump and inquired whether some criminals had purchased the petrol on 1.6.2009 or not. He showed inability to give such information. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he could not tell the exact date of visit of the police to Petrol Pump. The police inquired whether any person had purchased petrol in bottle, to which he declined. He was the only person on night duty on 1.6.2009. The other person namely Dharam Pal on night duty had fallen ill and had not come to the Petrol Pump. 37. PW30, Dr. The police inquired whether any person had purchased petrol in bottle, to which he declined. He was the only person on night duty on 1.6.2009. The other person namely Dharam Pal on night duty had fallen ill and had not come to the Petrol Pump. 37. PW30, Dr. Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 3.6.2009, on the request of the police, Ext.PW30/A accompanied with inquest report, Ext.PW30/B, he visited the spot at village Daonghat and conducted postmortem of an unidentified body, which was lying there totally burnt vide Ext.PW30/D. It was a male body aged about 55 years. It was totally burnt below neck. The time elapsed between injury and death was few minutes to some hours, whereas between death and post mortem was less than 24 hours. Samples of hair from the scalp were taken and handed over to the Investigating Officer for its analysis. According to his opinion, the deceased died due to head injury leading to brain haemorrhage. He further deposed that since the injuries present on the head were lacerated wound and not sharp wound, and the body of the deceased from neck to top was totally burnt and the injuries which might have been caused with Gandasi were not possible to detect, so he refused to open the parcel containing Gandasi. He gave his opinion to this effect vide Ext.PW30/F. According to him, the injuries could be caused with hockey stick. 38. PW31, Dr. J.R. Gaur, deposed that on 16.6.2009, he along with his team visited and examined the place of occurrence at village Thade Ka Thakurdwara in the house of Rajinder Singh Goyal, which was occupied by accused Sumit Dhillon. They prepared the report, Ext.PW31/A. They took thirty photographs of the place of occurrence, vide Ext.PW31/C1 to Ext.PW31/C-30. 39. PW32, HC Bharat Singh deposed that on 18.6.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar, Police Station Dharampur, handed over to him two parcels duly sealed with seal “R” and one Alto car along with relevant documents and samples of seal etc. The registration number of the car was HP-14A-3853, which he took to FSL Junga and deposited there. 39. PW32, HC Bharat Singh deposed that on 18.6.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar, Police Station Dharampur, handed over to him two parcels duly sealed with seal “R” and one Alto car along with relevant documents and samples of seal etc. The registration number of the car was HP-14A-3853, which he took to FSL Junga and deposited there. According to him on 20.6.2009, accused Sumit Dhillon made a disclosure statement in his presence and lady Constable Chanderwati that she had thrown the clothes used for cleaning the blood stains along with trouser of the accused Devinder Kumar and piece of hockey stick in a canal on the way to Moga. His statement, Ext.PW32/A was recorded. The accused Devinder Kumar handed over to him one shirt, trouser and a pair of Punjabi Jutti in his presence, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW14/B. He further deposed that in his presence accused Gurdeep Singh produced black coloured pants and half sleeve shirt. The same were sealed in parcel with seal impression “N”. On 22.6.2009, he along with Lady Constable Chanderwati and SHO Govind Ram accompanied the accused Sumit Dhillon. She identified a canal known as Nilo canal falling on the way to Moga. She disclosed that she had thrown the trouser of Devinder, cloth used for wiping the blood stains and the black portion of the hockey stick, which were not traceable. Memo, Ext.PW32/C was prepared to this effect. Thereafter, they visited parental house of accused Sumit Dhillon, at Moga. In his presence, the accused Sumit Dhillon handed over her mobile phone bearing No.98721-86474. Its EMI number was also ascertained and was seized vide memo, Ext.PW32/D. Thereafter, the accused Sumit Dhillon handed over her clothes, i.e. salwar, shirt and chuni and a pair of sandal. These were sealed in a cloth parcel with seal impression “O”. On 25.6.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar handed over to him two parcels bearing seal impression “N” and one parcel bearing seal impression “D” vide RC No.34/09, which he deposited at FSL Junga on the same day. 40. PW33, MHC Avtar Singh, deposed that on 20.6.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar entrusted him two parcels bearing seal impression “A” at three places with RC No.32/09 which he deposited at FSL Junga on the same day. 41. 40. PW33, MHC Avtar Singh, deposed that on 20.6.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar entrusted him two parcels bearing seal impression “A” at three places with RC No.32/09 which he deposited at FSL Junga on the same day. 41. PW34, HC Mohan Lal, deposed that on 3.6.2009, SI Dharam Singh deposited with him three parcels bearing seal impression “B” along with sample of seal containing two burnt spectacles, four mobile pieces, which were also burnt and ashes lifted from the spot. He entered the same at Sr. No.209 in the malkhana register. On 4.6.2009, Constable Kewal Krishan deposited with him a vial duly sealed with seal of CH Nalagarh containing hair of the deceased and one envelope sealed with the same seal addressed to the Director, FSL Junga. He also entered the same at Sr. No.209-A in the malkhana register. He also proved the copies of malkhana register vide Ext.PW34/A and Ext.PW34/B. On 15.6.2009, he had sent one of the samples, containing mobile pieces and another parcel containing ashes lifted from the spot to FSL Junga through HHC Gurmail Singh vide RC No.27/09, Ext.PW34/C who after deposited the same at FSL Junga handed over to him receipt thereof. On 29.6.2009, he handed over the parcel containing spectacles duly sealed with seal impression “B”. 42. PW35, Constable Yash Pal, deposed that on 2.7.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar handed over to him one envelope duly sealed with seal impression “B” along with sample of seal vide RC No.36/09. He deposited the same at FSL Junga on the same day. 43. PW36, HHC Jaswant Singh, deposed that on 24.8.2009, MHC Praveen Kumar handed over to him two envelopes duly sealed with seal of Civil Hospital, Solan and one parcel duly sealed with seal impression “R” along with relevant documents vide RC No.57/09, which he deposited at FSL Junga on the same day. 44. PW37, Dr. Minakshi Mahajan, deposed that she had issued report, Ext.PW37/H. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not given the details on the basis of which, she had given her opinion. The reconstructed photographs were not sent to the court, but were lying in the case file. The reconstruction was carried out by the team of Dr. Sanjiv at CFSL, Chandigarh. 45. The reconstructed photographs were not sent to the court, but were lying in the case file. The reconstruction was carried out by the team of Dr. Sanjiv at CFSL, Chandigarh. 45. PW38, HHC Gurmail Singh, deposed that on 15.6.2009, MHC Mohan Lal handed over to him three parcels duly sealed with seal impression “B” vide RC No.27/09, which he deposited at FSL Junga on the same day. 46. PW39, Constable Pawan Kumar, deposed that on 29.6.2009, SI Raj Kumar, the then SHO Police Station Dharampur, accompanied by HC Prem Dass visited the Police Station Baddi. MHC Mohan Lal handed over three parcels and one envelope to SI Raj Kumar. Out of the parcels, one parcel was sealed with seal impression “B” containing spectacles. Another parcel bearing seal of “FSL” and seal impression “B” was containing pieces of burnt mobile. He further deposed that another parcel duly sealed with seal of CH Nalagarh containing hair of skull of the deceased and the envelope was also seal sealed with CH Nalagarh addressed to FSL Junga. Memo, Ext.PW39/D was prepared to this effect. 47. PW40, SI Dharam Singh, deposed that on 3.6.2009, information was received in the Police Station from Ramjan that a partly burnt dead body of a human being was lying at Daonghat. He along with other police officials visited the spot. He clicked the photographs of the dead body, Ext.PW37/A to Ext.PW37/D from his own digital camera. The camera was in working condition having no technical fault. He prepared the inquest reports, Ext.PW20/A and Ext.PW30/B on the spot. The dead body was highly decomposed and it was not possible to lift. The Doctor was requested vide application Ext.PW30/A to conduct the post mortem on the spot. Dr. M.K. Dixit visited the spot and conducted the post mortem and issued report, Ext.PW30/D. The doctor preserved the scalp hair and a piece of flesh and handed over it to him. Two spectacles were recovered from a place where the dead body was lying. They were in burnt condition. The dead body was handed over to Noor Mohd. for cremation vide memo, Ext.PW20/D. Memo, Ext.PW20/C was prepared qua seizure of the soil, pieces of mobile and spectacles. The dead body was unidentified and it was cremated. Two spectacles were recovered from a place where the dead body was lying. They were in burnt condition. The dead body was handed over to Noor Mohd. for cremation vide memo, Ext.PW20/D. Memo, Ext.PW20/C was prepared qua seizure of the soil, pieces of mobile and spectacles. The dead body was unidentified and it was cremated. It appeared that the deceased was murdered and the dead body was thrown at Daonghat after setting it on fire and therefore, FIR No.6 dated 4.6.2009 was registered at Police Station Baddi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was told by Shyam Lal and Ram Lal that they had noticed something burning on the spot in the morning at 6.30 A.M. on 3.6.2009, when they had gone to answer call of the nature. The spot was visible from the road. He admitted that he had informed Dharampur Police Station about the recovery of dead body on 3.6.2009. 48. PW41, MHC Praveen Kumar, deposed that on 4.6.2009, Krishna Devi presented application Ext.PW1/A. Daily diary No.11 was entered by him in the computer. On 7.8.2009, Krishna Devi filed another application, Ext.PW1/B, on the basis of which FIR No.62/09 was entered in the computer. He had taken out the printouts of daily diary No.11 Ext.PW41/A, missing report, Ext.PW41/B and FIR Ext.PW41/C. He had issued certificate, Ext.PW41/D. As per malkhana register, on 16.6.2009 Inspector Govind Ram deposited with him four parcels of the case bearing seal impression “R” at three places along with sample of seal. He entered the same at Sr.429 of the malkhana register. On the same day, SI Ram Pal handed over to him an Alto car bearing registration No.HP-14A-3853 along with its documents. He also entered the same at Sr. No.430 of the malkhana register. Inspector Govind Ram also deposited with him articles recovered from the personal search of Gurdeep and Devinder, which he entered at Sr. No.431 of the malkhana register. On 17.6.2009, Inspector Govind Ram deposited with him two parcels bearing seal impression “A” at three places along with sample of seal, which were entered by him at Sr. No.432 of the malkhana register. He further deposed that on 18.6.2009 he sent the Alto car vide RC No.30/09 through HC Bharat Singh to FSL Junga. No.431 of the malkhana register. On 17.6.2009, Inspector Govind Ram deposited with him two parcels bearing seal impression “A” at three places along with sample of seal, which were entered by him at Sr. No.432 of the malkhana register. He further deposed that on 18.6.2009 he sent the Alto car vide RC No.30/09 through HC Bharat Singh to FSL Junga. The parcels containing blood lifted from the spot, another parcel containing two pillow covers and T-shirt were sent on the same day through HC Bharat Singh vide RC No.31/09 to FSL Junga. On 19.6.2009, the parcels containing Gandasi and a piece of hockey were handed over to Inspector Govind Ram along with sample of seal to seek opinion from the Medical Officer, CHC Nalagarh. These were re-deposited with him by Inspector Govind Ram on the same day. On 20.6.2009, the parcels containing Gandasi and hockey stick were sent to FSL Junga vide RC No.32/09 through HHC Avtar Singh. On 21.6.2009, Inspector Govind Ram deposited with him two parcels bearing seal impression “N” at three places along with sample of seal, which he entered at Sr. No.437 of the malkhana register. On 22.6.2009, HC Prem Dass handed over to him an Indica Car No.HP-12B-9603, which he entered at Sr. No.435 of Malkhana register. On 22.6.2009, Inspector Govind Ram deposited with him a parcel sealed with seal impression “O” at five places along with sample of seal and a Nokia mobile, which he entered at Sr. No.36 of the malkhana register. He further deposed that on 25.6.2009, the parcels containing clothes of Gurdeep Singh, Devinder and Sumit Dhillon duly sealed with seal impression “N” and “O” were sent by him to FSL Junga along with sample of seal and requisite documents through HC Bharat Singh. On 29.6.2009 SI Raj Kumar the then SHO, Police Station Dharampur deposited with him two parcels duly sealed with seal impression “B” at two places containing two spectacles and burnt pieces of mobile phone and another parcel and envelope bearing seal of CH Nalagarh containing scalp hair of deceased and docket. He entered the same at Sr. No.438 of the malkhana register. On 2.7.2009, photographs of the dead body and life time photographs of the deceased Paras Ram which were sealed in one envelope with seal impression “B” along with sample of seal were handed over to HC Yashpal vide RC No.36/09 to FSL Junga. He entered the same at Sr. No.438 of the malkhana register. On 2.7.2009, photographs of the dead body and life time photographs of the deceased Paras Ram which were sealed in one envelope with seal impression “B” along with sample of seal were handed over to HC Yashpal vide RC No.36/09 to FSL Junga. The parcels containing scalp hair of the deceased and envelope containing the docket were not accepted by FSL and were returned back to HHC Kanshi Ram on the ground that without the blood sample, DNA could not be conducted. These were re-deposited with him. On 14.8.2009, SI Raj Kumar deposited with him a parcel bearing two seal impression of seal “B” along with sample seal containing ashes lifted from the spot. He entered the same at Sr. No.456 of the malkhana register. On 24.8.2009, he handed over the parcel containing two pillow covers and blood samples of Sobha Ram and Dropati Devi, parents of the deceased Paras Ram along with sample of seal and the requisite documents through HHC Jaswant Singh vide RC No.57/09 to FSL Junga. In cross-examination, he admitted that Krishna Devi had not submitted applications regarding missing of the deceased Paras Ram in his presence to SHO, Police Station Dharampur. He did not know about the arrest of the accused Sumit Dhillon before registration of the FIR. There was nothing in writing conveyed by the FSL, Junga qua return of hair sample. He volunteered that this fact was entered in the daily dairy and he could not make the entry in the malkhana register by mistake. He had not brought the daily diary register in which the entry was made. These samples were not sent again to FSL, Junga. 49. PW42, HC Prem Dass, deposed that on 29.6.2009, he along with SI Raj Kumar visited the Police Station Baddi and in his presence, SI Dharam Singh handed over the documents pertaining to FIR No.86/09 to Sub Inspector Raj Kumar, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW34/E. On the same day, MHC Mohan Lal also handed over three parcels, one envelope, copy of malkhana register to SI Raj Kumar, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW34/D. On 22.6.2009, he visited Baddi and seized Alto Car No.HP-12B-9603 vide memo, Ext.PW21/A. 50. PW43 SI Ram Pal, deposed that he remained posted as Addl. SHO, Police Station Dharampur. PW43 SI Ram Pal, deposed that he remained posted as Addl. SHO, Police Station Dharampur. On 7.6.2009, on the application of Krishna Devi, Ext.PW1/B, FIR, Ext.PW41/C was recorded at Police Station, Dharampur. It was signed by SHO Govind Ram. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him. The investigation revealed that the complainant had suspicion on Sumit Dhillon regarding missing of the deceased Paras Ram. A Team of police officials was sent to the parental house of accused Sumit Dhillon at Moga and she was called to Dharampur. On 6.6.2009, she came to Dharampur. On 7.6.2009, she was called to Police Station and then Krishna Devi moved application, Ext.PW1/B on the basis of which FIR was registered. The accused Sumit Dhillon was arrested on 7.6.2009. On 8.6.2009, the accused Sumit Dhillon was produced before the learned JMIC, Kasauli and the police was granted her remand for three days. It has come in the investigation that on 1.6.2009, Sumit Dhillon recharged her mobile phone at Sukhi Johari from the shop of Parmod Kumar. The call details of mobile phone of accused Sumit Dhillon were procured from BSNL, Ext.PW8/B and details of subscriber of mobile phone No.94185-78972, Ext.PW8/C were procured, which revealed that last call on mobile phone of deceased was of cell phone of Sumit Dhillon. The mobile phone was verified. It was found in the name of accused Devinder Kumar. Accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder were also called to the Police Station and he interrogated both of them. It had also come in the investigation that the Alto car bearing No.HP-14-B-3853 was used by the accused for carrying dead body of the deceased and the car belonged to accused Sumit Dhillon, which was kept by her with one Kuldeep Sharma at place Chhihardi, Dharampur. The car was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW5/A. On 18.6.2009, he visited Moga to call the witness Anup Gil. On 19.6.2009, Anup Gill accompanied her grand mother and maternal uncle visited Police Station, Dharampur. She was associated in the investigation and her statement, Ext.PW11/A was recorded by him. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the application dated 4.6.2009, Krishna Devi had not suspected anybody. They visited so many places in search of deceased Paras Ram. ASI Rama Nand and one or two more persons had gone to Moga on 6.6.2009 to bring accused Sumit Dhillon. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the application dated 4.6.2009, Krishna Devi had not suspected anybody. They visited so many places in search of deceased Paras Ram. ASI Rama Nand and one or two more persons had gone to Moga on 6.6.2009 to bring accused Sumit Dhillon. He volunteered that accused Sumit Dhillon herself visited the Police Station. The house of the accused Sumit Dhillon was not searched from 8.6.2009 to 11.6.2009. 51. PW44, Dropati Devi, deposed that the deceased Paras Ram was her son. She did not remember the date and month when sample of her blood was taken in the Government Hospital, Solan by the doctor. The sample of blood of her late husband Shobha Ram was also taken on the same day by the doctor. 52. PW45, Dr. Uday Thakur, deposed that on 24.8.2009, he had taken the blood samples of Dropati Devi and Sobha Ram on FTA cards for DNA profiling. 53. PW46, Inspector Govind Ram, deposed that on 7.6.2009, an application, Ext.PW1/B was moved by Krishna Devi, on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW41/C was recorded. On 16.6.2009, he took over the investigation of the case. The Director, FSL, Junga was requested to visit the spot. The Director FSL Junga along with his team visited the spot and prepared his report, Ext.PW31/A. Blood stains were detected by FSL experts on the floor, on the door of the toilet, water tank and stand of the fridge. Those were lifted from the spot. Two blood stains pillow covers were recovered from the washing machine. Outside the room, a broom and towel were found lying. Seizure memos, Ext.PW7/A, Ext.PW7/B, Ext.PW7/C and Ext.PW7/D were prepared in the presence of witnesses Promila and Tara Chand. He prepared the spot map, Ext.PW46/C. He also clicked the photographs of the spot, Ext.PW31/C-1 to Ext.PW31/C-30. He also deposed the manner in which the accused Gurdeep Singh made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered the clothes and Gandasi and he could show the place where the dead body was thrown and burnt. His statement was recorded vide Ext.PW5/B. He also proved the disclosure statement made by the accused Devinder Kumar, vide Ext.PW5/C. On 17.6.2009, the accused were taken to Surajpur on Haripur Baddi Road. His statement was recorded vide Ext.PW5/B. He also proved the disclosure statement made by the accused Devinder Kumar, vide Ext.PW5/C. On 17.6.2009, the accused were taken to Surajpur on Haripur Baddi Road. The accused took them to the tea stall of one Jia Lal at Surajpur and disclosed that they had taken tea on that stall on the night of 1.6.2009. Jia Lal was also associated in the investigation. Thereafter, the accused Devinder led the police party and witnesses Jia Lal and Mehar Singh to a place ahead from the tea stall of Jia Lal and disclosed that he had thrown a piece of hockey towards the valley side of the road in the bushes. Thereafter, a piece of hockey stick was recovered from the bushes at the instance of Devinder Kumar. The sketch of piece of hockey was drawn on a piece of cloth, Ext.PW6/D. Memo, Ext.PW46/D was prepared. Thereafter, the accused got recovered a Gandasi from the bushes. Its sketch was drawn vide Ext.PW6/C. Memo, Ext.PW6/A was prepared. The spot map qua recoveries, Ext.PW46/E was prepared. On 20.6.2009, Gandasi and hockey stick piece parcels thereof were taken to Medical Officer, Nalagarh vide request Ext.PW30/E, on the basis of which, his opinion, Ext.PW30/F was procured. On 20.6.2009, statement of Ms. Anup Gill was got recorded from JMIC Kasauli vide Ext.PW11/B and Ext.PW11/C. On 20.6.2009, accused Sumit Dhillon made a disclosure statement in the presence of witnesses Bharat Singh and Chanderwati, Ext.PW32/A, that the trouser of Devinder Kumar and piece of hockey stick were thrown by her in a canal on the way to Moga and further that she could show the place where the above articles were thrown and also the place where the dead body of Paras Ram was thrown and set on fire by them. The mobile phone of Durga Dutt was taken into possession at the instance of accused Gurdeep Singh on 21.6.2009. Thereafter, the accused Devinder Kumar in the presence of witnesses Bir Singh and Devi Ram led the police party at place Daonghat and he identified the place where the dead body was thrown and set on fire by them. Memo, Ext.PW14/A was prepared to this effect. Thereafter, the accused Devinder Kumar in the presence of witnesses Bir Singh and Devi Ram led the police party at place Daonghat and he identified the place where the dead body was thrown and set on fire by them. Memo, Ext.PW14/A was prepared to this effect. The accused Gurdeep Singh in the presence of the witnesses Palak Ram and Prem Chand led the police party to the same place and he identified the place where the dead body was thrown and set on fire by them. Memo, Ext.PW17/A was prepared in this regard. Sumit Dhillon also led the police party to the same place. Memo, Ext.PW13/A was prepared to this effect. The accused Devinder in the presence of the witnesses Bharat and Devi Ram led the police party to his village Kotla and handed over a shirt, trouser and pair of Punjabi shoe. Accused Sumit Dhillon identified the trouser that it was the same which was given by her to accused Devinder Kumar to wear as the trouser worn by him at the time of occurrence was stained with blood. Memo, Ext.PW14/B was prepared to this effect. On 22.6.2009, the accused Sumit Dhillon led the police party to Nilo Canal on Chandigarh to Ludhiana road and disclosed that she had thrown the piece of hockey stick, blood stained trouser of the accused Devinder and other clothes, which were used by them for washing the blood stains in her house at Thade Ka Thakurdwara. The articles were searched on both banks of the canal, but the same were not traced out. Thereafter, the accused Sumit Dhillon led the police party to her parental house at Moga where in the presence of witnesses, Bharat Singh and Chanderwati she handed over her salwar, shirt chuni and pair of sandal and disclosed that the same were worn by her at the time of occurrence on 1.6.2009. Memo, Ext.PW32/F was prepared to this effect. The articles so recovered were sent to FSL vide request letters, Ext.PW46/H, Ext.PW46/J, Ext.PW46/K and Ext.PW46/L and the reports whereof were received vide Ext.PX, Ext.PW31/E, Ext.PW46/M, Ext.PY and Ext.PZ. 54. PW47 Inspector Raj Kumar, deposed that on 29.6.2009, he visited the Police Station Baddi. Memo, Ext.PW32/F was prepared to this effect. The articles so recovered were sent to FSL vide request letters, Ext.PW46/H, Ext.PW46/J, Ext.PW46/K and Ext.PW46/L and the reports whereof were received vide Ext.PX, Ext.PW31/E, Ext.PW46/M, Ext.PY and Ext.PZ. 54. PW47 Inspector Raj Kumar, deposed that on 29.6.2009, he visited the Police Station Baddi. In the presence of the witness, Prem Dass and Pawan Kumar, MHC Mohan Lal handed over the case property, i.e. a parcel duly with seal impression “B”, another parcel sealed with seal impression “B” and seal of FSL containing burnt pieces of spectacles and mobile phone, another parcel sealed with seal of CH Nalagarh and copy of malkhana register. These were seized vide memo, Ext.PW34/D. SI Dharam Singh also handed over all the papers pertaining to the investigation of the case FIR No.86/09, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW34/E. The photographs of the dead body Ext.PW37/A to Ext.PW37/D were seized. On 1.7.2009, Inder Singh, son of the deceased handed over three life time photographs of the deceased Paras Ram and the same were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW2/A. On 24.8.2009, Sobha Ram father of the deceased and Dropati Devi mother of the deceased were taken to Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Solan, who obtained their blood samples on FTA cards and handed over the same to him in two separate sealed envelopes duly sealed with seal of hospital. 55. PW48, SHO Jagdish Kanwar, deposed that the reports of DNA test, Ext.PW47/D to Ext.PW47/G were received by him. 56. PW49, Gaurav Sharma, deposed that he remained posted as Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, in the year 2009. On application dated 20.6.2009, Ext.PW49/A, a request was made by the SHO, Police Station Dharampur for recording statement of Kumari Anup Gill under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Anup Gill was 14 years old. In camera, proceedings were held and preliminary questions, Ext.PW39/B were put to Kumari Anup Gill to ascertain her maturity level. After ascertaining her maturity level and after giving certificate in this respect, Ext.PW49/C, statement of the witness was recorded on oath after obtaining her consent, Ext.PW11/B. It was ascertained more than once whether she wanted to make voluntary statement and she was not under any sort of pressure. Accordingly, her statement was recorded on oath in his hand exactly what she stated vide Ext.PW11/C. In cross-examination, he admitted that Ms. Accordingly, her statement was recorded on oath in his hand exactly what she stated vide Ext.PW11/C. In cross-examination, he admitted that Ms. Anup Gill was produced by the police before him for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. No family members or relatives were accompanying Anup Gill in the court. He volunteered that she told him that her relatives were accompanying and sitting outside the court. He admitted that he had not called any relative inside the court for his satisfaction. Before recording the statement, he was satisfied that Anup gill was brought from her home at Moga, Punjab. He had not appended any specific note for his satisfaction that she was brought from Moga. He had inquired from Anup Gill specifically why she wanted to make such statement which would go against her mother. He admitted that such questions did not come in writing on record that why she wanted to make statement against her mother. He did not remember the time when Anup gill was produced before him. He volunteered that it was during court hours. He gave approximately 15-20 minutes to Anup Gill for reflection. He admitted that the time had not been mentioned in the record. He had not inquired from the police officials about the date when Anup Gill was brought from Moga. 57. PW50, Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, deposed that request letter, Ext.PW50/A was received from the S.P. Solan to supply him the billing address, identity proof, tower location and call details w.e.f. 25.5.2009 to 9.6.2009 regarding mobile Number 98167-04882 and 098721-86074. He supplied the information, Ext.PW50/B. In cross-examination, he deposed that Ext.PW50/A was not signed by any official. He neither signed nor attested Ext.PW50/B. There was no letter or address proof with which, Ext.PW50/B was sent. 58. Now, the Court will advert to the conduct of PW1 Krishna Devi, wife and PW2 Inder Singh, son of the deceased Paras Ram respectively. According to the contents of application, Ext.PW1/A, dated 4.6.2009 filed by PW1 Krishna Devi before the SHO, Police Station Dharampur, her husband left the house on 1.6.2009 for village Banjani to attend Jagran at the house of Mast Ram. On 2.6.2009, PW2 Inder Singh tried to contact his father on mobile No. 9857183732, but the mobile phone was switched off. They thought that her husband might have gone to attend marriage in the house of Promila at village Ghulari. On 2.6.2009, PW2 Inder Singh tried to contact his father on mobile No. 9857183732, but the mobile phone was switched off. They thought that her husband might have gone to attend marriage in the house of Promila at village Ghulari. On 3.6.2009, she along with her family members made search of her husband at Village Banjani and in her relations, but they could not locate him. She gave description of her husband. PW1 Krishna Devi in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that she has not written date “4.6.2009” on Ext.PW1/A. 59. PW1 Krishna Devi filed another application, Ext.PW1/B before the SHO, Police Station, Dharampur, on 7.6.2009. According to the averments contained in the application, Ext.PW1/B, her husband had gone to the house of Kirpa Ram on 30.5.2009. He made a telephonic call to her from Dharampur on 1.6.2009 and asked whether some articles were to be brought or not. She told him that an invitation had come from the house of Mast Ram at village Banjani for ‘Jagran’. She asked him to go there. He told him that he was going there. On 3.6.2009, inquiries were made in relations, when her husband did not come back to house. Thereafter, she asked her son PW2 Inder Singh to make inquiries. He tried to contact his father on mobile phone No.98571-83732. It was found switched off. Thereafter, her son and younger brother-in-law went to village Banjani. They came to know that the deceased had left for his house at 4.30 P.M.. Thereafter, the inquiries were made in the relations. When the deceased was not traced out, missing report was filed on 4.6.2009 in the Police Station. Her son, Inder Singh, was a property dealer. Accused Sumit Dhillon from Moga, Punjab was his partner. She was residing in a rented accommodation at Thadey Ka Thakurdwara. About 20-25 days ago, altercation took place between them with regard to accounts of property dealing. She left for Moga. Her son also told her that she wanted to marry him. Her son refused the proposal and told her that he was already married. Thereafter, Sumit Dhillon threatened him. She came to know that on 1.6.2009, Sumit Dhillon had come to Sukhi Jori in her car and got her mobile phone recharged from the shop of one Rameshwar. Her son also told her that she wanted to marry him. Her son refused the proposal and told her that he was already married. Thereafter, Sumit Dhillon threatened him. She came to know that on 1.6.2009, Sumit Dhillon had come to Sukhi Jori in her car and got her mobile phone recharged from the shop of one Rameshwar. Her son received a telephonic call from mobile No.094638-34404 from one Harmeet Bawa, Patiala, requesting him and her family members to come to him and he would resolve the matter and her husband would be traced. Harmeet Bawa used to roam in the car of Sumit Dhillon. Kirpa Ram had told her that her husband was with him on 30 and 31.5.2009, who told him that Sumit Dhillon was causing disturbance to him by calling repeatedly. She suspected that Sumit Dhillon due to enmity with her son may have kidnapped her husband with the help of Harmeet Singh or another person. 60. According to application, Ext.PW1/A, the deceased left the house on 1.6.2009 to attend ‘Jagaran’ at village Banjani in the house of Mast Ram. However, in Ext.PW1/B, the deceased had left the house on 30.5.2009 to the house of Kirpa Ram. According to PW1/B, on 1.6.2009, PW1 Krishna Devi received a telephonic call from her husband that whether he should bring household articles or not. She told him to go to Village Banjani to attend Jagran in the house of Mast Ram. According to PW1/A, when her husband did not come back to house, on 2.6.2009, PW2 Inder Singh tried to contact his father on mobile No. 9857183732, but the mobile phone was switched off. However, in Ext.PW1/B, she stated that her son tried to contact his father on 3.6.2009. In Ext.PW1/A, she had not suspected involvement of accused Sumit Dhillon and co-accused behind missing of the deceased. When Ext.PW1/A was filed before the SHO, Police Station, Dharampur, she knew about the strained relations of her son, Inder Singh with Sumit Dhillon and she was supposed to give details of the suspect and strained relations between her son and accused Sumit Dhillon to the Police. She named Sumit Dhillon for the first time in Ext.PW1/B, that too on 7.6.2009. She named Sumit Dhillon for the first time in Ext.PW1/B, that too on 7.6.2009. The reasons for suspecting Sumit Dhillon was that relations between her son and her were not cordial since she was having some dispute qua settlement of accounts and that she wanted to marry her son. 61. Now, the court will advert to the statements of PW1 Krishna Devi and PW2 Inder Singh. PW1, Krishna Devi, deposed that on 30.5.2009 her husband had gone to the house of father of her daughter-in-law, namely, Kirpa Ram at Village Chanogari. Her husband telephoned her on 1.6.2009, at about 2.00 P.M. She asked him to attend ‘Jagran’ in the house of Mast Ram, father-in-law of her niece at Village Banjani. Her husband visited the house of Mast Ram. Her husband did not return on 2.6.2009. She asked her son Inder Singh and brother-in-law Palak Ram to locate her husband. They tried to contact him on his mobile, however, it was switched off. They presumed that her husband might be present in the marriage. However, on 3.6.2009, when he did not come back, they tried to locate him in relations. In these circumstances, application, Ext.PW1/A was filed in the Police Station, Dharampur on 4.6.2009 that her husband had gone missing. She moved another application, Ext.PW1/B suspecting involvement of accused Sumit Dhillon behind missing of her husband. She admitted in her cross-examination that no writing with respect to business of property dealing between her son Inder Singh and accused Sumit Dhillon was made in her presence. No dealings of selling or buying of property were struck in her presence. She visited the residence of accused Sumit Dhillon once, but she was regular visitor of her house. She was not aware about the amount due between her son and the accused Sumit Dhillon as no such transaction took place in her presence. She was told by her son about some dispute with respect to commission of the property dealings between accused Sumit Dhillon and her son. However, she did not remember the date when her son told about the dispute. She deposed that the distance between village Banjani and her house was about 4-5 kms. She had not stated in the application, Ext.PW1/A that her husband was repeatedly receiving calls from the accused Sumit Dhillon. PW2, Inder Singh is son of the deceased Paras Ram. However, she did not remember the date when her son told about the dispute. She deposed that the distance between village Banjani and her house was about 4-5 kms. She had not stated in the application, Ext.PW1/A that her husband was repeatedly receiving calls from the accused Sumit Dhillon. PW2, Inder Singh is son of the deceased Paras Ram. According to him, on 30.5.2009, his father went to the house of Kirpa Ram father-in-law of his elder brother at Village Chanogari. According to him, he stayed there till 31.5.2009. On 1.6.2009, he contacted him on telephone between 10-11 A.M. and informed that he was visiting house of Mast Ram at village Banjani to attend ‘Jagran’. He returned to his house in the evening and on 2.6.2009, he attended ‘Barat’ at village Nauni. He stayed at village Thadi on 2.6.2009 in the house of his relative. On 3.6.2009, he received a telephonic call from his mother PW1 Krishna Devi disclosing that the mobile phone of his father was switched off. He also tried to contact his father repeatedly on his mobile No.98571-83732, but it was switched off. His mother asked him to make inquiry about his father at village Banjani. He along with his uncle Palak Ram visited the house of Mast Ram at Village Banjani. Mast Ram told them that his father after taking meals had left his house on 1.6.2009 about 4.30-5.00 P.M.. He further deposed that there were several marriages in their relations, therefore, they tried to locate his father in their relations, but he was not located. Thus, a missing report, vide application, Ext.PW1/A was lodged on 4.6.2009 at Police Station, Dharampur. PW1, Krishna Devi, deposed that on 2.6.2009, when her husband did not come back to his house, she had not enquired from Kirpa Ram either on telephone or sending any person there. According to her, her son, Inder Singh and brother-in-law Palak Ram did not visit the house of Kirpa Ram to locate her husband. However, PW3 Kirpa Ram, in his examination in chief deposed that he received a telephonic call from the house of the deceased on 3.6.2009 that he had not come back to the house. Thereafter, on the same day, he visited the house of the deceased Paras Ram. 62. However, PW3 Kirpa Ram, in his examination in chief deposed that he received a telephonic call from the house of the deceased on 3.6.2009 that he had not come back to the house. Thereafter, on the same day, he visited the house of the deceased Paras Ram. 62. What emerges from the statements of PW1 Krishna Devi and PW2 Inder Singh that is that the deceased left the house on 30.5.2009. He remained in the house of PW3 Kirpa Ram till 31.5.2009. The deceased contacted his wife on 1.6.2009 at 2.00 P.M.. He was told by his wife that he should go to village Banjani to attend ‘Jagran’ in the house of Mast Ram. Thereafter, he did not come. The statement of PW3 Kirpa Ram also does not inspire confidence. PW3, Kirpa Ram, did not know the name of Pandit, who performed ceremony of cutting of fuel wood in his house. He was closely related to the deceased Paras Ram. Frantic efforts were not made to trace out the deceased. Missing report was lodged on 4.6.2009, vide Ext.PW1/A. Missing report should have been filed immediately on 2.6.2009. The distance between house of Mast Ram was about 4-5 kms away from the house of the deceased Paras Ram. The FIR has been registered on 7.6.2009. The version of PW2 Inder Singh that they thought that Paras Ram had gone to attend some marriage is strange. How they could take missing of Paras Ram so lightly. The conviction can not be made merely on the basis of suspicion. In order to record conviction, legal evidence is only to be taken into account. 63. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and others vs State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 have held that the court cannot be oblivious to conduct that is too unnatural even taking into account unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction. Court must determine whether in circumstances of case, behaviour of witnesses concerned is acceptably natural allowing for variations and if behaviour is absolutely unnatural, testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. Court must determine whether in circumstances of case, behaviour of witnesses concerned is acceptably natural allowing for variations and if behaviour is absolutely unnatural, testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. In Gopal Singh and others v. State of Madya Pradesh, this Court did not agree with the High Court which had accepted the statement of an alleged eye witness as his conduct was unnatural and while so holding, it observed as follows: - We also find that the High Court has accepted the statement of Feran Singh, PW 5 as the eye witness of the incident ignoring the fact that his behaviour was unnatural as he claimed to have rushed to the village but had still not conveyed the information about the incident to his parents and others present there and had chosen to disappear for a couple of hours on the specious and unacceptable plea that he feared for his own safety. 22. Thus, the behaviour of witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance.” 64. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 have held though there cannot be uniformity in human reaction, it is also to be borne in mind that if conduct of witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. Their Lordships have held as under: “22. Their Lordships have held as under: “22. The attack is based on the grounds, namely, that the said witness ran away from the spot; that he did not intimate the police about the incident but, on the contrary, hid himself behind the pipes near a canal till early morning of the next day; that though he claimed to be eye witness, yet he did not come to the spot when the police arrived and was there for more than three hours; that contrary to normal human behaviour he went to Pune without informing about the incident to his wife and stayed for one day; that though the police station was hardly one furlong away yet he did not approach the police; that he chose not even to inform the police on the telephone though he arrived at home; that after he came from Pune and learnt from his wife that the police had come on 21.2.1988, he went to the police station; and that in the backdrop of such conduct, his version does not inspire confidence and deserves to be ignored in toto. 26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. 27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-2. As is evincible from his deposition, on seeing the assault he got scared, ran away from the hotel and hid himself behind the pipes till early morning. He went home, changed his clothes and rushed to Pune. 27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-2. As is evincible from his deposition, on seeing the assault he got scared, ran away from the hotel and hid himself behind the pipes till early morning. He went home, changed his clothes and rushed to Pune. He did not mention about the incident to his family members. He left for Pune and the reason for the same was also not stated to his family members. He did not try to contact the police from his residence which he could have. After his arrival at Pune, he did not mention about the incident in his sister-in-law’s house. After coming back from Pune, on the third day of the occurrence, his wife informed that the police had come and that Bhau, who had accompanied him, was dead. It is interesting to note that in the statement under Section 161 of the Code, he had not stated that he was hiding himself out of fear or he was scared of the police. In the said statement, the fact that he was informed by his wife that Bhau was dead was also not mentioned. One thing is clear from his testimony that seeing the incident, he was scared and frightened and ran away from the hotel. He was frightened and hid himself behind the pipes throughout the night and left for home the next morning. But his conduct not to inform his wife or any family member and leaving for Pune and not telling anyone there defies normal human behaviour. He has also not stated anywhere that he was so scared that even after he reached home, he did not go to the police station which was hardly at any distance from his house. There is nothing in his testimony that he was under any kind of fear or shock when he arrived at his house. It is also surprising that he had not told his family members and he went to Pune without disclosing the reason and after he arrived from Pune and on being informed by his wife that his companion Bhau had died, he went to the police station. It is also surprising that he had not told his family members and he went to Pune without disclosing the reason and after he arrived from Pune and on being informed by his wife that his companion Bhau had died, he went to the police station. We are not oblivious of the fact that certain witnesses in certain circumstances may be frightened and behave in a different manner and due to that, they may make themselves available to the police belatedly and their examination gets delayed. But in the case at hand, regard being had to the evidence brought on record and, especially, non-mentioning of any kind of explanation for rushing away to Pune, the said factors make the veracity of his version doubtful. His evidence cannot be treated as so trustworthy and unimpeachable to record a conviction against the appellants. The learned trial court as well as the High Court has made an endeavour to connect the links and inject theories like fear, behavioural pattern, tallying of injuries inflicted on the deceased with the Post Mortem report and convicted the appellants. In the absence of any kind of clinching evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, we are disposed to think that it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction.” 65. There is also inherent contradiction in the statements of PW1 Krishna Devi and PW2 Inder Singh. According to PW1 Krishna Devi when her husband did not come back to home on 2.6.2009, she asked her son Inder Singh and brother-in-law, Palak Ram, to locate her husband. PW2, Inder Singh, also deposed that he along with his uncle Palak Ram visited the house of Mast Ram at village Banjani. However, PW17, Palak Ram, nowhere stated that he was asked by PW1 Krishna Devi to locate her husband or he accompanied PW2 Inder Singh to the house of Mast Ram. 66. PW1 Krishna Devi in her examination-in-chief deposed that they received a telephonic call from one Harmeet Bawa on 5.6.2009, who was known to the accused Sumit Dhillon. He told her son to come to Moga along with her and her daughter so that the matter could be settled. She did not know what matter was to be settled, but she thought that perhaps her husband would be recovered from there. He told her son to come to Moga along with her and her daughter so that the matter could be settled. She did not know what matter was to be settled, but she thought that perhaps her husband would be recovered from there. Similarly, PW2 Inder Singh deposed that on 5.6.2009, Harmeet Bawa made a telephonic call to him on mobile No.98571-83730 from mobile No.094638-34404 and asked him to come to Moga along with his sister and mother in order to settle the matter with accused Sumit Dhillon and his father would also be recovered. The police has not at all investigated the role of Harmeet Bawa. 67. There is also inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the FIR. According to the prosecution, the deceased Paras Ram was not heard of after 1.6.2009. However, missing report was lodge on 4.6.2009 and the FIR was registered on 7.6.2009. 68. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive why the accused would have killed the deceased Paras Ram. 69. It has come in the statement of PW1, Krishna Devi that relations between her son PW2 Inder Singh and accused Sumit Dhillon were sour. However, she was not aware of any details of specific dealing qua property between her son Inder Singh and Sumit Dhillon. PW2, Inder Singh, categorically admitted that he had no licence of property dealing. He even did not remember the names of buyers and sellers. He did not prepare any record to this effect. According to him, the dispute arose with respect to sharing of the commission. However, he did not know the exact amount of sale. He could not narrate the profit earned by their partnership concern. According to him, accused Sumit Dhillon wanted to sell 41 bighas of land owned by his father, Paras Ram. He did not produce any revenue record to prove that his father Paras Ram owned 41 bighas of land at Naina Tikker. He did not remember the date and month when the accused Sumit Dhillon made the offer, however, according to him, it was in 2009. He did not narrate this fact to the police. The other motive, as per the prosecution case, is that the accused Sumit Dhillon wanted to marry PW2 Inder Singh because she was divorcee. He did not remember the date and month when the accused Sumit Dhillon made the offer, however, according to him, it was in 2009. He did not narrate this fact to the police. The other motive, as per the prosecution case, is that the accused Sumit Dhillon wanted to marry PW2 Inder Singh because she was divorcee. Her daughter, Anup Gill, was 14 years old. PW2 Inder Singh refused to marry accused Sumit Dhillon saying that he was already married. Merely that Sumit Dhillon insisted to marry PW2 Inder Singh and he refused the proposal could not lead to murder of Paras Ram. 70. The learned trial has drawn inference of motive to kill Paras Ram by accused from, Ext.PW1/B, which is merely a complaint made to the SHO, Police Station on 7.6.2009. It was not a substantive piece of evidence to prove motive. Whatever stated in the complaint, Ext.PW1/B cannot be taken as gospel truth. The other inference drawn by the learned trial court that the accused Sumit Dhillon wanted to marry PW2 Inder Singh and since Inder Singh refused to marry her, she wanted to take revenge, it is too far-fetched. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive to kill Paras Ram by the accused. 71. The presence of accused Sumit Dhillon has been tried to be established on 1.6.2009 on the basis of statement of PW4 Parmod Thakur. According to him, the accused Sumit Dhillon visited his shop at about 5.00-5.30 P.M. on 1.6.2009 in order to recharge her mobile phone bearing No.98721-86074 for Rs.100/- In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know when he started the business. He had not maintained the record of recharge. According to him, he was not legally bound to maintain the recharge record. He did not remember the number of recharges made by him on that day. He further deposed that he had told the police that entry qua recharge of Sumit Dhillon was made in the register, however, the register was destroyed after 2-3 days. The police did not ask for record of the recharge. His statement does not inspire confidence. 72. PW5 Jagdish and PW6 Mehar Singh are witnesses to the disclosure statements, Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C made by accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder Kumar. The police did not ask for record of the recharge. His statement does not inspire confidence. 72. PW5 Jagdish and PW6 Mehar Singh are witnesses to the disclosure statements, Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C made by accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder Kumar. According to PW5, Jagdish and PW6 Mehar Singh, accused Gurdeep Singh made a disclosure statement, Ext.PW5/B to the police that he could get recovered the Gandasi thrown by him. Similarly, the accused Devinder Kumar also made disclosure statement that he could get recovered the hockey stick vide Ext.PW5/C. However, PW10, Jia Lal, had not supported the prosecution case the manner in which the recoveries were made pursuant to disclosure statements, Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C. He was declared hostile. Though, he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor at length, but nothing fruitful was elucidated. 73. Learned trial court has placed strong reliance upon statement made by PW11 Anup Gill, daughter of the accused Sumit Dhillon, under section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ext.PW11/C. The statement, Ext.PW11/C is not a substantive piece of evidence. PW11 Anup Gill had not at all supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. In her cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, she deposed that she was threatened by the police to make statement, Ext.PW11/C. The police told her that if she wanted welfare of her mother, she should make statement as directed by them. Statement, PW11/C was recorded by PW49 Gaurav Sharma, the then Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli. In cross-examination, PW49 Guarva Sharma, admitted that PW11 Anup Gill was produced by the police before him for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. According to him, no family members or relatives were accompanying Anup Gill in the court. He also admitted that he had not called any relative of PW11 Anup Gill inside the court for his satisfaction. He was satisfied before recording the statement that Anup Gill was brought from her house at Moga, Punjab. He had inquired from Anup Gill specifically why she wanted to make such statement which would go against her mother. He admitted that such questions did not come in writing on record. He even did not remember the time when Anup gill was produced before him. According to him, he gave approximately 15-20 minutes to Anup Gill for reflection. However, he admitted that the time had not been mentioned in the record. He admitted that such questions did not come in writing on record. He even did not remember the time when Anup gill was produced before him. According to him, he gave approximately 15-20 minutes to Anup Gill for reflection. However, he admitted that the time had not been mentioned in the record. He had not inquired from the police officials about the date when Anup Gill was brought from Moga. Learned trial court has erred in law by relying upon the statement, Ext.PW11/C made by PW11 Anup Gill under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She had not supported the case of the prosecution at all and was declared hostile. While cross-examining by the learned counsel for the accused, she explained the circumstances under which she was made to give statement before PW49 Gaurav Sharma. 74. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Delhi vs. Shri Ram Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 490 have held that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness. Their Lordships have held as under:- 13. The Additional Sessions Judge observed in his judgment with reference to Aggarwal as follows: "He no doubt in his further cross-examination made certain damaging statements which would throw doubt on his previous statement but as the statement was made long after the first statement and at a time when Tara Chand accused had been discharged it seems to me that this witness was won over & he has intentionally prevaricated under the influence of the accused whose ex-employee he was. This inference finds support from the fact that in his statement under S. 164. Criminal Procedure Code made on 20th October, 1951, he stated that he was still in the employment of Messrs. Iron and Hardward (India) Company, while has now asserted in Court that he had been already dismissed by Sri Ram accused because of Sri Ram's differences with Tara Chand accused". It is clear therefore that the learned Judge relied on some statement of Aggarwal recorded under S. 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Statement under S. 164 referred to was not specifically put to Aggarwal even to contradict him. Statements recorded under S. 164 of the Code are not sustantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness. The Statement under S. 164 referred to was not specifically put to Aggarwal even to contradict him. Statements recorded under S. 164 of the Code are not sustantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness. An admission by a witness that a statement of his was recorded under S. 164 of the Code and that what he had stated there was true would not make the entire statement admissible much less that any part of it could be used as substantive evidence in the case. The Additional Sessions Judge therefore erred in law in using the statement of Aggarwal under S. 164 to come to the conclusion that he had been won over. If that statement is excluded from consideration it is a mater of pure guess that Aggarwal had been won over after his examination-in-chief was over. 75. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Charan vs. State of U.P., AIR 1968 SC 1270 have explained the evidentiary value of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as under:- “10. These observations were dissented from by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In re Gopisetti Chinna Venkata Subbiah. ILR (1955) Andhra 633 at p. 638 = (AIR 1955 Andhra 161 at pp. 163-164) and Subba Rao, C. J., preferred the following observations of the Nagpur High Court in Parmanand v. Emperor. AIR 1940 Nag 340. "We are of the opinion that if a statement of a witness is previously recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, it leads to an inference that there was a time when the police thought the witness may change but if the witness sticks to the statement made by him throughout, the mere fact that his statement was previously recorded under Section 164 will not be sufficient to discard it. The Court, however, ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such witness, it can be acted upon." 11. We agree with Subba Rao, C. J., that the observations of the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court lay down the law correctly.” 76. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan vs. Harmit Kaur, AIR 1972 SC 468 have held that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence. We agree with Subba Rao, C. J., that the observations of the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court lay down the law correctly.” 76. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan vs. Harmit Kaur, AIR 1972 SC 468 have held that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the statement of the witness or to contradict him. Their Lordships have held as under:- “8. A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used to contradict a witness. The first information report was considered by the Sessions Judge. Any special consideration of the statement of Hazura Singh under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have produced a different result by reason of the conclusions of the Sessions Judge as to rejecting the oral evidence of Nihal Kaur, Harmit Kaur and Hazura Singh as unreliable, untruthful and unworthy of credence. 9. It is true that the High Court as an appellate Court can set aside an order of acquittal. In doing so, the High Court has to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. The High Court is to consider the views of the trial Judge as to credibility of the witnesses. The High Court is also to keep in view the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt. Finally the High Court is to give reasons that the acquittal was not justified. The acquittal by the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be against the evidence or in disregard of evidence. Nor can the acquittal be said to be in violation of the principles of criminal jurisdiction. 10. The High Court in setting aside the acquittal said that the result would have been different if the Sessions Judge had taken into consideration the statement of Hazura Singh Exhibit P.4 with which Hazura Singh had been confronted. In cross-examination Hazura Singh said that the statement before the Magistrate Exhibit P.4 was made under threat and was a wrong statement. The Sessions Judge found that Hazura Singh made the same statement disowning the first information report. In cross-examination Hazura Singh said that the statement before the Magistrate Exhibit P.4 was made under threat and was a wrong statement. The Sessions Judge found that Hazura Singh made the same statement disowning the first information report. Hazura Singh was torn in his conscience between emotion for his son the appellant on the one hand and his wife Nihal Kaur and the deceased son Bharpur Singh on the other.” 77. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanabai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1980 SC 628 have held that if the witness resiles from the statement given by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the committal court, the witness can be cross-examined on his earlier statement. But, if he sticks to the statement given by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before committal enquiry and resiles from it in the Sessions Court, the procedure prescribed under Section 288 Cr.P.C. will have to be observed. It is for the court to consider taking into account all the circumstances including the fact that the witness had resiled, in coming to the conclusion as to whether the witness should be believed or not. The statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be relied upon as corroborating their subsequent evidence before the committal court. Their Lordships have held as under:- “13. The second legal contention raised by the learned counsel was that the High court was in error in taking into account the statements recorded from the witnesses under S. 164 of the Criminal P. C. in coming to the conclusion that the evidence given by them in the Committal Court could be relied upon. The High Court stated "we are satisfied having regard to 164 statements of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 that the statements given by those witnesses before the Committing Court are true and could be relied on" and proceeded to observe that "as there are more statements admitted in evidence under S. 288 of the Criminal P. C. than one, the evidence of one witness before the Committing Court is corroborated by that given by others", Mr. Mulla, learned counsel, submitted that a statement recorded under S. 164 of the Criminal P. C. indicates that the Police thought that the witness could not be relied on as he was likely to change and therefore, resorted to securing a statement under S. 164 of the Criminal P. C. The statement thus recorded, cannot be used to corroborate a statement made by witness in the Committal Court. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on certain observations of this Court in Ram Charan v. State of U. P., (1966) 3 SCR 354. In that case in a statement recorded from the witness under S. 164 of the Criminal P. C. the Magistrate appended a certificate in the following terms:- "Certified that the statement has been made voluntarily. The deponent was warned that he is making the statement before the 1st Class Magistrate and can be used against him. Recorded in my presence. There is no Police here. The witness did not go out until all the witnesses had given the statement'. The Court observed that the endorsement made is not proper but declined to infer from the endorsement that any threat was given to the witnesses or that it necessarily makes the evidence given by the witnesses in Court suspect or less believable. The view of the Patna High Court in Emperor v. Menu Chik, AIR 1938 Pat 290-295, where the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in Queen Empress v. Judub Das, (1900) ILR 27 Cal 295, that statements of the witnesses obtained under this Section always raises a suspicion that it has not been voluntarily made was referred to, was relied on by the learned counsel. This Court did not agree with the view expressed in the Patna case but agreed with the view of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in In re Gopisetti Chinna Venkata Subbiah, ILR (1955) Andhra 633, where he preferred the view expressed by Nagpur High Court in Parmanand v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Nag 340. It was observed that the mere fact that the witness's statement was previously recorded under S. 164 will not be sufficient to discard it. It was observed that the Court ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such witnesses. It can be acted upon. It was observed that the Court ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such witnesses. It can be acted upon. During the investigation the Police Officer, sometimes feels it expedient to have the statement of a witness recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. This happens when the witnesses to a crime are closely connected with the accused or where the accused are very influential which may, result in the witnesses being gained over. The 164 statement that is recorded has the endorsement of the Magistrate that the statement had been made by the witness. The mere fact that the police had reasons to suspect that the witnesses might be gained over and that it was expedient to have their statements recorded by the Magistrate, would not make the statements of the witnesses thus recorded, tainted. If the witness sticks to the statement given by him to the Magistrate under S. 164, Cr. P. C. no problem arises. If the witness resiles from the statement given by him under S. 164 in the Committal Court, the witness can be cross-examined on his earlier statement. But if he sticks to the statement given by him under S. 164 before committal enquiry and resiles from it in the Sessions Court, the procedure prescribed under S. 288, Cr. P. C., will have to be observed. It is for the Court to consider taking into account all the circumstances including the fact that the witness had resiled in coming to the conclusion as to whether the witness should be believed or not. The fact that the police had S. 164 statement recorded by the Magistrate, would not by itself make his evidence suspect. 14. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the statement recorded under S. 164 of the Cr. P. C. can be relied on for corroborating the statements made by the witnesses in the Committal Court. This Court has expressed its view that though the statements made under S. 164 of the Cr. P. C. is not evidence, it is corroborative of what has been stated earlier in the Committal Court vide (1971) I SCR 56. P. C. can be relied on for corroborating the statements made by the witnesses in the Committal Court. This Court has expressed its view that though the statements made under S. 164 of the Cr. P. C. is not evidence, it is corroborative of what has been stated earlier in the Committal Court vide (1971) I SCR 56. The High Court was right in relying on the statement of the witnesses under S. 164 as corroborating their subsequent evidence before the Committal Court, Equally unsustainable is the plea of the learned counsel that a statement recorded under S. 288 of the Cr. P. C. of one witness cannot corroborate the statement of another witness under S. 288. The statements are treated as substantive evidence in law and we do not see any flaw in treating the statement of one witness as corroborative of the other. The result is the questions of law raised by the learned counsel fail. The appeal of the first appellant is rejected and his conviction and sentence confirmed. The appeal of the second appellant is allowed and his conviction and sentence set aside. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.” 78. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramprasad vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 5 SCC 30 have held that statement recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. becomes usable to corroborate the witness as provided in Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Section 155 thereof. Their Lordships have held as under:- “15. Be that as it may, the question is whether the Court could treat it as an item of evidence for any purpose. Section 157 of the Evidence Act permits proof of any former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact before "any authority legally competent to investigate the fact" but its use is limited to corroboration of the testimony of such witness. Though a police officer is legally competent to investigate, any statement made to him during such investigation cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness because of the clear interdict contained in Section 162 of the Code. But a statement made to a Magistrate is not affected by the prohibition contained in the said Section. Though a police officer is legally competent to investigate, any statement made to him during such investigation cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness because of the clear interdict contained in Section 162 of the Code. But a statement made to a Magistrate is not affected by the prohibition contained in the said Section. A magistrate can record the statement of a person as provided in Section 164 of the Code and such statement would either be elevated t o the status of Section 32 if the maker of the statement subsequently dies or it would remain within the realm of what it was originally. A statement recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 becomes usable to corroborate the witness as provided in Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Section 155 thereof.” 79. In Phool Chand vs. State of U.P., 2004 Cr.L.J. 1904, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court have held that where witnesses themselves did not support their version, their statements earlier recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be available to the prosecution for their corroboration. Their Lordships have held as under:- “18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Amarjeet Singh has tried to emphasise that Karan (P. W. 1) and his wife Smt. Makkhan (P. W. 2) were produced before the Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. in which they fully supported the facts/circumstances leading to the commission of multiple murders in this case. The learned counsel has contended that these statements should be given due weight and should be considered for proving the offences with which the appellants were charged. On thoughtful consideration on this legal aspect of the matter, we find that the aforesaid submission has no substance in it. The statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr. P. C. is one where the accused have hardly any occasion to cross examine him and if it is to be treated as substantive piece of evidence, it should be duly tendered before trial Court and then a witness should be produced by the prosecution for his cross examination. In this context the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has cited the case law of Brij Bhushan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 P C 38 (1946 (47) Cri LJ 336) and Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur, 1972 Cri. In this context the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has cited the case law of Brij Bhushan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 P C 38 (1946 (47) Cri LJ 336) and Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur, 1972 Cri. LJ 267 : ( AIR 1972 SC 468 ). In these cases the Privy Council and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have categorically held that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. are not substantive evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the statements of the witness or to contradict them. In the present case, when the witnesses (P. W. 1 and P. W.2) have themselves did not support their version, their statements earlier recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. could not be available to the prosecution for their corroboration. It could, to the maximum, be used by the prosecution for their contradiction, but that too has not been done in the present case. It is obvious that it would be a fallacy of a legal approach to have reliance upon the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and thereby to record conviction of the accused persons on that basis.” 80. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baij Nath Sah vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 6 SCC 736 have held that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence. Their Lordships have held as under:- “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We see from the judgments of the Courts below that the only material that has been used against the appellant is the statement under Sec.164 of the Cr.P.C. This Court in Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit Kaur and Another ( (1972) 3 SCC 280 ) has held that a statement of 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis. statement made in Court. In other words, it can be only utilized only as a previous statement and nothing more. 7. We see from the record that Suman Kumari was not produced as a witness as she had since been married in Nepal and her husband had refused to let her return to India for the evidence. In this light her statement under Section 164 cannot be used against the appellant. 7. We see from the record that Suman Kumari was not produced as a witness as she had since been married in Nepal and her husband had refused to let her return to India for the evidence. In this light her statement under Section 164 cannot be used against the appellant. Even otherwise, a look at her statement does not involve the appellant in any manner. The allegation against him is that after she had been kidnapped by the other accused she had been brought to their home, where the appellant was also present. In other words, when she had been brought to the appellant's home the kidnapping had already taken place. The appellant could therefore not be implicated in the offence under Sec.363 or 366-A of the IPC de hors other evidence to show his involvement in the events preceding the kidnapping. 8. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment impugned. The appellant is acquitted.” 81. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in George vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605 have held that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used only to contradict or corroborate the maker of the statement. Their Lordships have held as under: 36. We may now turn to the evidence of P. W. 50, detailed earlier. From the judgment of the trial Court we notice that the substantial parts of its comments, (quoted earlier) are based on his statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. and not his evidence in Court. The said statement was treated as substantive evidence; as would be evident from the following, amongst other observations made by the learned trial Court: "If Ext. P. 42 (the statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C.) is found to be a genuine statement it can be used as an important piece of evidence to connect the accused with the crime." In making the above and similar comments the trial Court again ignored a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that a statement of a witness recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. cannot be used as substantive evidence and can be used only for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating him. Instead of appreciating the evidence of P. W. 50 from that perspective the trial Court confined its attention mainly to his statement so recorded and discredited him. P. C. cannot be used as substantive evidence and can be used only for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating him. Instead of appreciating the evidence of P. W. 50 from that perspective the trial Court confined its attention mainly to his statement so recorded and discredited him. This legal infirmity apart, factually also the trial Court committed patent errors. As earlier noticed, one of the grounds for disbelieving him was that in the trip sheet the name of the person who performed the journey, namely, A1 was not shown. If the trial Court had cared to look into the other trip sheets which form part of Ext. P. 54 it would have found that in none of them the name of the person who hired the car is mentioned. he trial Court was, therefore, not at all justified in commenting upon such non-mentioning of the name of the hirer and concluding therefrom that the document was suspect. The comments of the trial Court that P. W. 50 made the statement before the Magistrate (Ext. P. 42) to oblige the police as his brother was arrested in connection with an excise case is also without any basis whatsoever. In drawing the above inference the trial Court was much influenced by the fact that the car in question, namely, KEK 3114 was seized by the police on May 31, 1990 and that it was released on June 28, 1990. According to the trial Court it was wrongfully detained by the police for such a long period to compel P. W. 50 to make a statement according to its dictate. Once a car is seized in connection with a case it can be returned pursuant to the order of a competent Court only and there is nothing on record to indicate that in spite of such an order the car was not returned so as to entitle the trial Court to comment that the long detention of the car was itself a suspicious circumstance. Having gone through the evidence of P. W. 50 we find that each of the reasons canvassed by the trial Court for disbelieving P. W. 50 is either legally unsustainable or factually incorrect. 82. Now, coming to the evidence how the co-accused were linked with alleged commission of offence. According to PW12 Pawan Kumar, he owned a taxi bearing registration No.HP-12-B-8753. 82. Now, coming to the evidence how the co-accused were linked with alleged commission of offence. According to PW12 Pawan Kumar, he owned a taxi bearing registration No.HP-12-B-8753. Though he did not remember the date and month, abut one year back, when he was at Manali, the accused Gurdeep Singh contacted him on his mobile phone and demanded vehicle somewhere near a bridge at Baddi. He disclosed that he indented to visit Dharampur. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not told the police that the accused Gurdeep had demanded the vehicle to visit Dharampur. He did not remember the telephone number from which the accused Gurdeep Singh had given him call. He also admitted that the accused Gurdeep Singh was not related to him. He volunteered that he was familiar with him. He also admitted that in case of use of private vehicle as Taxi, the police used to impose the fine. He also admitted that sometime police used to take their vehicle without paying any charges. Statement of PW12 Pawan Kumar is of no consequence. PW18, Durga Dutt, deposed that he did not remember the date and month when the accused Gurdeep Singh visited his tea stall and took his mobile phone to give some missed call. According to him, Gurdeep Singh had taken his mobile to make a call in Chandigarh to inquire for NOC of his truck. It is not understandable why the prosecution has examined this witness. There was no occasion for Gurdeep Singh to visit the tea stall of PW18 Durga Dutt that too to lend his mobile phone for making a missed call. PW23, Shiv Singh deposed the manner in which the Indica Car No.HP-12B-9603 was hired by accused Gurdeep Singh. According to him, accused Gurdeep Singh asked him to come to Ratta Pul on Sai Road, Baddi. He visited Ratta Pul and met the accused Gurdeep Singh. Thereafter, two persons came there on a motorcycle. He identified accused Devinder Kumar, who was the pillion rider. They boarded his taxi and proceeded to Dharampur. According to him, at about. 7.30 P.M., when they reached at Dharampur, the accused Gurdeep Singh took his vehicle towards left side of the Dharampur at a distance of half kilometre and told him to wait. He waited for some time. Thereafter, he slept and woke up at 9.00 P.M.. They boarded his taxi and proceeded to Dharampur. According to him, at about. 7.30 P.M., when they reached at Dharampur, the accused Gurdeep Singh took his vehicle towards left side of the Dharampur at a distance of half kilometre and told him to wait. He waited for some time. Thereafter, he slept and woke up at 9.00 P.M.. He called Gurdeep Singh on mobile, who asked him to come to Sukhi Johari Chowk. Thereafter, he went to Sukhi Johari. Accused Gurdeep asked him to bring petrol in the bisleri bottle from petrol pump, Dharampur. After some time, he received a call from accused Gurdeep Singh, who told him that they would come in their own vehicle. The accused Gurdeep Singh came in Alto Car along with other person. He had not seen other persons sitting in the car since the glasses were shut. Accused Gurdeep Singh further asked him to follow the car. He proceeded towards Kalka. He could not locate the vehicle. Thereafter, he rang up on the mobile of Gurdeep Singh. He was told to wait near Haripur gate at Barotiwala. After some time, he again made a telephonic call to the accused Gurdeep Singh and he was told that they were coming within 2-4 minutes. They reached at 11.45 P.M. by Alto car. He handed over the bottle of petrol to accused Gurdeep Singh. He left for his own house and accused Gurdeep Singh left for his destination. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he could not say about the presence of the accused Devinder, one girl Anup Gill and Sumit Dhillon in the Alto Car. He volunteered that he had not seen them in the Alto car. He had not seen the accused Sumit Dhillon sitting with her daughter Anup Gill on the rear seat of Alto Car. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he admitted that his vehicle bearing private number could not be registered with taxi union. He could not produce the receipt of payment of entry tax at Parwanoo on the relevant day. He also admitted that the Alto car used by Gurdeep Singh was having black glasses. PW24, Kala Singh, who was working as Clerk in the Doon Taxi Union, deposed the manner in which the Indica Car No.HP-12B-9603 was sent by him to Ratta Pul near Vardhman factory. He also admitted that the Alto car used by Gurdeep Singh was having black glasses. PW24, Kala Singh, who was working as Clerk in the Doon Taxi Union, deposed the manner in which the Indica Car No.HP-12B-9603 was sent by him to Ratta Pul near Vardhman factory. 83. Now, the court will advert to whether petrol was ever given to PW23 Shiv Singh and the accused Devinder Kumar from the Petrol Pumps, that too in the bottles. The prosecution has relied upon statements of PW28 Arun Kumar and PW29 Mohinder Singh. PW28, Arun Kumar, proprietor of Kaushal Enterprises Haripur Sandauli, Baddi, produced attendance register, Ext.PW28/A for the month of June 2009. PW29, Mohinder Singh deposed that he was working as salesman in the outlet owned by Kaushal enterprises. The police came once or twice to petrol pump and inquired whether some criminals had purchased petrol on 1.6.2009. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he was the only person on night duty on 1.6.2009. He denied the suggestion that the accused Devinder had purchased two litres petrol in a cold drink bottle. According to the prosecution, PW23 Shiv Singh purchased petrol from petrol pump, Dharampur in a bisleri bottle and accused Devinder Kumar also purchased two litres petrol in a cold drink bottle from Kaushal Enterprises Haripur, Sandauli, Baddi. It is not believable why the accused would have asked PW23 Shiv Singh to bring petrol and thereafter why accused Devinder Kumar himself purchased two litres petrol to dispose off the dead body. The evidence linking the accused Gurdeep Singh and Devinder Kumar with the commission of alleged offence is weak and not trustworthy and is liable to be discarded. 84. The presence of the deceased Paras Ram in the evening of 1.6.2009 has been tried to be established at Dharampur on the basis of statement of PW27 Manjeet Singh. According to him, on 1.6.2009, when he along with his wife was going to Sukhi Johari, Paras Ram met them near a small bridge at 7.00 P.M.. He was going to Kanda Side. They exchanged greeting. In cross-examination, he deposed that Jagran in the house of his friend was to start at 9.00 P.M.. He never visited the house of Paras Ram, but he was known to him. 85. He was going to Kanda Side. They exchanged greeting. In cross-examination, he deposed that Jagran in the house of his friend was to start at 9.00 P.M.. He never visited the house of Paras Ram, but he was known to him. 85. According to PW22, Rajinder Singh Goyal, his wife owned a three storeyed house at Thade Ka Thakurdwara on Kanda Road. He had rented out ground floor of the house partly consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, latrine and bath room to the accused Sumit Dhillon. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had employed one Chowkidar for the house, who used stay in the house during day and night. 86. PW13, Dhani Ram, deposed that the accused Sumit Dhillon identified the place where the dead body of Paras Ram was thrown and set on fire. He admitted in his cross-examination that Ramesh Kumar, who was his brother-in-law, was married in the family of the deceased Paras Ram. PW14, Devi Ram did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 87. PW17, Palak Ram admitted in his cross-examination that the police had told him in the Police Station that he was to accompany the police to the spot of occurrence and that the place would be shown to him. PW25, Shyam Lal deposed the manner in which the dead body was found lying in partly burnt condition in the territorial jurisdiction of Baddi, Police Station and the same was handed over to PW20 Noor Mohd. for cremation. 88. According to the prosecution, a highly decomposed body was found at village Daonghat. The police asked PW30 Dr. Manoj Kumar to carryout post mortem since the dead body could not be lifted. PW30 Dr. Manoj Kumar conducted the post mortem and issued post mortem report, Ext.PW30/D. According to him, the unidentified body was totally burnt below the neck. The dead body was of 45 years old person. According to PW40, SI Dharam Singh, a partly burnt dead body of human being was found lying towards the valley side of road. Its face was burnt, legs and arms were in burnt condition. The scalp was also found partly burnt. Some polythene like substance was wrapped over the scalp. The dead body was highly decomposed and it was not possible to lift. Therefore, he requested the doctor vide application, Ext.PW30/A to conduct the post mortem at the spot. Its face was burnt, legs and arms were in burnt condition. The scalp was also found partly burnt. Some polythene like substance was wrapped over the scalp. The dead body was highly decomposed and it was not possible to lift. Therefore, he requested the doctor vide application, Ext.PW30/A to conduct the post mortem at the spot. The dead body after post mortem was handed over to PW20 Noor Mohd. for cremation. In cross-examination, he admitted that the no injury was noticed on the dead body when the inquest report was prepared. He also admitted that he had informed Dharampur Police Station about the recovery of dead body on 3.6.2009. The prosecution has tried to establish that the highly decomposed dead body was of Paras Ram on the basis of statement of PW37 Dr. Minakshi Mahajan. PW37 Dr. Minakshi Mahajan proved her report, Ext.PW37/H. According to the report, Ext.PW37/H, the reconstruction of the burnt face in photographs marked as Q-1 to Q-4 was carried out using digital technology. From the comparison of the reconstructed photograph with the life time photographs marked as A-1 to A-3, it was inferred that the burnt face in photographs marks as Q-1 to Q-4 could be of the person having life time photographs marked as A-1 to A-3. She admitted in her cross-examination that the reconstruction was carried out by the team of Dr. Sanjiv at CFSL Chandigarh. Thus, she had not undertaken the reconstruction. It was done only by the team of CFSL Chandigarh headed by Dr. Sanjiv. Dr. Sanjiv from CFSL Chandigarh has not been cited as a witness. PW37 Dr. Minakshi Mahajan volunteered that she had not carried out any study on this aspect. The prosecution has failed to produce reconstructed photograph of the deceased on record. According to PW37 Dr. Minakshi Mahajan, the reconstructed photographs were not sent to the Court, however, the same were lying in the case file. In view of statement of PW37 Minakshi Mahajan, it cannot be held conclusively that the dead body found at Daonghat on 3.6.2009 was of deceased Paras Ram. 89. According to report, Ext.PW31/E, laboratory examinations were carried out to detect the presence of blood on Exhibit-1, Alto Car HP-14A-3853 by applying various tests. In view of statement of PW37 Minakshi Mahajan, it cannot be held conclusively that the dead body found at Daonghat on 3.6.2009 was of deceased Paras Ram. 89. According to report, Ext.PW31/E, laboratory examinations were carried out to detect the presence of blood on Exhibit-1, Alto Car HP-14A-3853 by applying various tests. Traces of blood too small for serological analysis were detected in the dickey of the car on right side cover of the music speaker and on the top back portion of back seat cover. Blood could not be detected at any other place of Exhibit-1, Alto Car. Thus, the report, Ext.PW31/E is an inconclusive report. 90. There is another important fact, which has been overlooked by the learned trial court. In Ext.PW1/A, it was not stated that Sumit Dhillon was the suspect behind missing of the deceased Paras Ram. Her name for the first time was cited in Ext.PW1/B. However, very-very intriguingly, PW43 SI Ram Pal, deposed that it had come in the investigation that the complainant had suspicion on Sumit Dhillon regarding missing of the deceased Paras Ram. Therefore, a Team of police officials was sent to the parental house of accused Sumit Dhillon at Moga and she was called to Dharampur. On 6.6.2009, she herself came to Dharampur. It has also come in evidence that ASI Rama Nand and one or two more persons had gone to Moga on 6.6.2009 to bring accused Sumit Dhillon. ASI Rama Nand has not been examined by the prosecution. How the police could call Sumit Dhillon to Police Station on 6.6.2009 when for the first time she was named as suspect in the complaint, Ext.PW1/B on 7.6.2009. The prosecution has not explained this aspect of matter, which casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. 91. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused Sumit Dhillon was using telephone No.98721-86074. PW50, Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Airtel Bharti Ltd., deposed that request letter, Ext.PW50/A was received from the Superintendent of Police, Solan, to supply the billing address, identity proof, tower location and call details w.e.f. 25.5.2009 to 9.6.2009 regarding mobile Nos. 98167-04882 and 098721-86074. He supplied the information vide Ext.PW50/B. It was taken out from the computer installed in his office. PW50, Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Airtel Bharti Ltd., deposed that request letter, Ext.PW50/A was received from the Superintendent of Police, Solan, to supply the billing address, identity proof, tower location and call details w.e.f. 25.5.2009 to 9.6.2009 regarding mobile Nos. 98167-04882 and 098721-86074. He supplied the information vide Ext.PW50/B. It was taken out from the computer installed in his office. According to him, it was true and correct as per the data saved in the computer under the system, which was working properly without any technical default. In cross-examination, he deposed that Ext.PW50/A was not signed by any official. He volunteered that it was computer generated. He also admitted that there was no certificate in writing that the system was working properly. He had not brought the record of documents submitted by the subscriber. He also admitted that Ext.PW50/B was not addressed to Nodal Officer. The telephonic calls were required to be proved as per Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The competent officer was required to issue certificate to this effect. 92. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn attention of the court to Ext.PW50/B, details of telephone of accused Sumit Dhillon, whereby alleged phone calls were made to deceased Paras Ram on mobile No.98571-83732. The prosecution has not proved that mobile No. 98571-83732 was owned by the deceased Paras Ram. It has come in the statement of PW9 Navjeet Sangwan that the cell phone Nos. 98571-83732 and 9857183730 were owned by PW2 Inder Singh. The prosecution also tried to prove that the accused Sumit Dhillon had been calling the deceased repeatedly on telephone No.98571-83732 as per Annexure PW1/B. However, it was not so stated in the complaint, dated 4.6.2009, Ext.PW1/A. PW50, Devinder Kumar, categorically admitted that he had not brought the record of documents submitted by the consumer. He also admitted that without verifying the documents submitted by the consumer, he could not say whether the address was correct or not and whether the details were pertaining to accused Sumit Dhillon or not. It is clear from Ext.PW50/B, that the conversation which had taken place between Mobile Nos. 98721-86074 and 9857183732 was inordinately long. Thus, had the deceased Paras Ram owned mobile No.98571-83732, the accused Sumit Dhillon would not have any occasion to talk to the deceased Paras Ram, father of PW2 Inder Singh. It is clear from Ext.PW50/B, that the conversation which had taken place between Mobile Nos. 98721-86074 and 9857183732 was inordinately long. Thus, had the deceased Paras Ram owned mobile No.98571-83732, the accused Sumit Dhillon would not have any occasion to talk to the deceased Paras Ram, father of PW2 Inder Singh. Even if it is assumed hypothetically, that Sumit Dhillon had any ill-will, it was only against PW2 Inder Singh and not against his father Paras Ram. It has come in the prosecution evidence that after Paras Ram went missing, cell phone of the accused Sumit Dhillon was also switched off. However, it is clear from Ext.PW50/B that the calls were made from her cell phone upto 6.6.2009. The possibilities of both cell phones being with the son of the deceased, PW2 Inder Singh cannot be ruled out. 93. PW7, Promila, deposed that on 16.6.2009, she along with Tara Chand remained associated in the investigation of the case. They went to the house of Rajinder Goyal at Thade Ka Thakurdwara. FSL team was also present there. The police lifted blood stains near the door, water tank, plastic stand of fridge, floor etc vide memo Ext.PW7/A. One black coloured towel was also recovered vide memo, Ext.PW7/C. The pillow cover and one T-shirt were recovered from the washing machine vide Ext.PW7/D. The seal after use was handed over to her vide memo, Ext.PW7/E. In cross-examination, she deposed that she had not brought the seal since the same was not summoned. The witness Tara Chand has not been examined by the prosecution. 94. It has come in the statements of PW20 Noor Mohd. and PW40 SI Dharam Singh that two spectacles were recovered from the place where the dead body was found lying. It is not explained by the prosecution why two spectacles were recovered when a man only wears one pair of spectacles. 95. PW44, Dropati Devi, deposed that she did not remember the date and month when sample of her blood was taken in the Government Hospital, Solan, by the doctors. The sample of blood of her late husband Shobha Ram was also taken on the same day by the doctors. According to PW45, Dr. 95. PW44, Dropati Devi, deposed that she did not remember the date and month when sample of her blood was taken in the Government Hospital, Solan, by the doctors. The sample of blood of her late husband Shobha Ram was also taken on the same day by the doctors. According to PW45, Dr. Uday Thakur, on 24.8.2009, on the request of the Investigating Officer, he had taken the blood samples of Dropati Devi and Sobha Ram on FTA cards for DNA profiling vide Ext.PW45/a and Ext.PW45/B. In cross-examination, he admitted that he received an application from the Investigating Officer for samples of PW44 Dropati Devi and her husband vide Ext.PW45/C. The application was not entered in the official record of the hospital. It was signed by him at point “A”. He admitted that the application was addressed to Senior Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Solan. The application was not marked to him by any superior officer. He volunteered that he was called in the office and was orally directed by the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital. He did not remember the name of Senior Doctor, who orally directed him since there were various Senior Doctors officiating on different dates. According to him, as per the procedure of the hospital, after receipt of application the doctors on duty used to conduct the required proceedings and then give the report. He had written on the application that the sample was taken and sent to the FSL Junga. The samples were taken and addressed to FSL Junga and handed over to the Investigating Officer in the sealed cover. According to him, the endorsement at point “B” in Ext.PW45/C was correctly made. He admitted that no endorsement was made on Ext.PW45/C regarding handing over of sample to the Investigating Officer. The only endorsement at point “B” on Ext.PW45/C is that samples be sent to FSL Junga. He further admitted that the photographs affixed on Ext.PW44/A and Ext.PW44/B were not attested by any person. He had not brought the seals with which the envelopes were sealed. His statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. PW47 Inspector Raj Kumar, deposed that on 24.8.2009 he along with Prem Dass accompanied Sobha Ram father of the deceased and Dropati Devi mother of the deceased to Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Solan at about 10.00-10.30 A.M.. After the samples were taken, they returned back at about 1.30 P.M.. His statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. PW47 Inspector Raj Kumar, deposed that on 24.8.2009 he along with Prem Dass accompanied Sobha Ram father of the deceased and Dropati Devi mother of the deceased to Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Solan at about 10.00-10.30 A.M.. After the samples were taken, they returned back at about 1.30 P.M.. Samples were taken in casualty department by Dr. Uday Thakur. The samples after sealing were handed over to them by the doctor on the same day. The DNA was conducted to confirm the investigation of the case whether the dead body belonged to Paras Ram or not. Statement of PW45 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ext.PW45/E, during the course of investigation. In his statement he deposed that on 24.8.2009, a request was received from Incharge, Police Station Dharampur, which was marked to him by Medical Superintendent, whereby the blood samples of Dropati Devi and her husband were to be taken. He prepared two samples with the consent of the parents of Paras Ram. He filled-in separate identification forms and samples were sealed in two envelopes and these were sealed with three seals of Civil Hospital, Solan. He handed over the sample seal and undertook to produce the same, if so directed by the Court. However, in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the application was never marked to him by any senior officer of the hospital nor any endorsement to this effect was made in the official record. It casts serious doubt whether the samples of blood were taken for DNA analysis or not. Statement of PW45 Dr. Uday Thakur is not supported by contemporaneous material including his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, no credence can be given to Ext.PW47/D. 96. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Neither chain of events is complete nor the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The trial court has convicted the accused on a mere superfluous approach without in-depth analysis of the relevant facts. 97. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.12.2010, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 97. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.12.2010, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The fine amount, if any deposited by them is ordered to be refunded to them. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 98. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send it to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.