JUDGMENT Per : Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 2003, Case Crime No. 09/2003, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, PS Jhabrera, District Haridwar. 2. As per the prosecution story, PW1 Hargyan, on 30.1.2003, reported the matter to PS Jhabrera, District Haridwar vide Ex. A-1 that today morning at about 6.45 AM, his son, namely, Sanjay Kumar went to relieve himself; when he was relieving himself in the agricultural field of Isham Singh, S/o Santu, R/o Village Molna, some unknown person has shot him dead; dead body was brought by him back to the home and it is lying there in his home; therefore, report may be lodged and all the legal formalities be completed. 3. On the aforesaid report of PW1 Hargyan, Chick F.I.R. was got registered as Case Crime No. 09/2003 in the Police Station Jhabrera on 30.1.2003 itself at 9.15 AM, but no progress was made in the investigation of the murder of Sanjay Kumar, deceased. On 11.3.2003, PW1 Hargyan handed over second report Ex. A-2 to the police. It is stated in the second report that PW1 has already reported the matter to PS Jhabrera on 30.1.2003 itself that his son Sanjay Kumar was shot dead in the agricultural field of Isham Singh by some unknown person when he was relieving himself; today morning (i.e. in the morning of 11.3.2003), PW2 Mahaveer has informed PW1 that on 30.1.2003, when PW2 was passing through near the agricultural field of Isham Singh, he had seen both the accused Sunil Kumar and Avrodh Kumar running from the field of Isham Singh after firing the shot; besides this, Ram Sharan, S/o Chhota, (PW8) has also informed PW1 that both the accused Sunil Kumar and Avrodh Kumar came to PW8 and had confessed before him (PW8) that they had killed Sanjay Kumar since one Court case was pending between Smt. Surji, the mother-in-law of Narendra Kumar @ Neki Ram (PW5) and both the accused, in which PW1 Hargyan and his deceased son Sanjay Kumar were helping Narendra Kumar and his mother-in-law; 31.1.2003 was fixed in that case in the Court of law; therefore, in the morning of 30.1.2003, both the accused have shot dead his son Sanjay Kumar. 4. 4. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of Sanjay Kumar on 30.1.2003 itself and dead body of Sanjay Kumar was found having two gunshot injuries, one in the stomach/abdomen area and second in the skull, and the cause of death was due to gunshot injures. 5. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against both the accused/appellants under Section 302 IPC. After committal of the trial, charge was framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Hargyan, the informant and father of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, PW2 Mahaveer, PW3 Mange Ram, PW4 Rampal, PW5 Narendra Kumar, PW6 Daya Ram, PW7 Dr. A. Day, PW8 Ram Sharan, PW9 Vimal Chandra Tamta, PW10 Narayan Singh Verma, PW11 Constable Surendra Singh, PW12 Nanke Singh Anwar and PW13 Harpal Singh were examined and thereafter statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 7. Learned Trial Court, having considered the entire material available on the record, was pleased to convict and sentence both the accused vide the judgment, impugned in this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bharadwaj for the appellants, Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Rajendra Singh for the complainant, and have carefully perused the record. 9. It is important to mention herein that there is no eyewitness of the incident. Initial report lodged on the date of incident, i.e. on 30.1.2003, also does not name any accused or any eyewitness, who might have witnessed the incident. It is also important to mention herein that after 30.1.2003 till the evening of 10.3.2003, no progress took place in the investigation of the murder of Sanjay Kumar. However, all of a sudden, PW1 Hargyan, father of deceased, got lodged another report on 11.3.2003 saying that PW2 Mahaveer has disclosed to him today itself (in the morning of 11.3.2003) that he had seen both the accused running out of the agricultural field of Isham Singh after firing the shots. It was further stated in the second report dated 11.3.2003 that both the accused have also confessed their guilt before Ram Sharan, S/o Chhota (PW8). 10. It was further stated in the second report dated 11.3.2003 that both the accused have also confessed their guilt before Ram Sharan, S/o Chhota (PW8). 10. Although PW1 Hargyan has stated in the second report about the confession made by the accused before PW8 Ram Sharan, but he has not stated in the second report Ex. A-2 that extra judicial confession was also made by both the accused before PW3, PW4 and PW6. However, PW3, PW4 and PW6 were also examined to prove the extra judicial confession allegedly made by both the accused before them. 11. Therefore, entire case is roaming around the circumstantial evidence in the shape of statement of PW2 Mahaveer as well as extra judicial confession made before PW3 Mange Ram, PW4 Rampal, PW6 Daya Ram and PW8 Ram Sharan. 12. PW3 Mange Ram, while appearing in the witness box, has stated that on 10.3.2003 at about 5 PM in the evening, accused Avrodh came to his house and has told him that he along with Sunil has shot Sanjay dead; therefore, he should intervene in the matter and should try to settle the matter with the father of deceased Sanjay. During the cross-examination, PW3 has stated that PW3, on the same day, went to the house of Hargyan and told him that accused have confessed before him (PW3) that they have shot dead Sanjay; he (PW3) did not report this thing to the police for next two days; however, he (PW3) has narrated entire story of confession in his affidavit submitted before the Court on the third day. 13. In our considered opinion, if PW3 has disclosed the alleged confession made before him by the accused, to Sri Hargyan PW1, why name of PW3 has not been mentioned by PW1 in the second report has not been made clear by the prosecution. Moreover, conduct of PW3 that after confession was made before him by the accused Avrodh, he did not disclose it to the police for next two days, however, has filed his affidavit in the Court on the third day narrating the story of extra judicial confession, does not inspire confidence. 14. PW4 Rampal, while appearing in the witness box, has stated in his examination-in-chief that both the accused came to him and have stated that they have committed blunder, therefore, he should settle their dispute with Hargyan and they wanted to apologize with Hargyan. 14. PW4 Rampal, while appearing in the witness box, has stated in his examination-in-chief that both the accused came to him and have stated that they have committed blunder, therefore, he should settle their dispute with Hargyan and they wanted to apologize with Hargyan. PW4 has further stated that none of the accused has told him as to what blunder he has committed. On this, PW4 was declared hostile. During the cross-examination, prosecution was not able to take out anything important from the PW4. Therefore, in our considered opinion, alleged extra judicial confession by the accused before PW4 is not proved. 15. PW6 Daya Ram has stated on oath that both the accused came to him almost after 2-3 months from the incident and requested him to settle their dispute with Hargyan Singh and have told him 6 (PW6) that they have killed Sanjay out of anger. During the cross examination, PW6 has stated that he has narrated entire story in his affidavit. 16. PW8 Ram Sharan has stated on oath that accused Avrodh and his father came to his (PW8) house and requested him to help them to compromise with Hargyan Singh PW1. During his examination-in-chief, he (PW8) further stated that they have not confessed before him that they have killed Sanjay. 17. During the cross examination, PW8 has stated that Avrodh and his father came to his house for compromise 4-5 days prior to recording of his statement by the Daroga jee, however he (PW8) has not disclosed this fact to the Daroga jee. Further stated that he has narrated entire story to Dheer Singh, another son of Hargyan Singh, however he has not told any story to Hargyan Singh. 18. In our opinion, if none of the accused has admitted before the PW8 that they have killed Sanjay, therefore, merely because PW8 was approached by Avrodh and his father for the compromise, does not mean that any inference should be drawn for extra judicial confession. 19. Having perused the statements of PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW8, we are of the opinion that theory of extra judicial statement could not be proved beyond doubt. 20. Now, we come to the statement of PW2 Mahaveer. 19. Having perused the statements of PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW8, we are of the opinion that theory of extra judicial statement could not be proved beyond doubt. 20. Now, we come to the statement of PW2 Mahaveer. As per the statement of PW2, in the morning of 30.1.2003, he was passing through near the field of Isham Singh; then he noticed gunshot sound coming from the field of Isham Singh and thereafter he had seen both the accused running out from the field of Isham Singh. PW2 Mahaveer further stated that when he reached to his village, he could get the knowledge that Sanjay, S/o Hargyan PW1, was shot dead by someone in the field of Isham Singh. He further states that thereafter he went out from the village for two months for the purpose of his job and after coming from the job, he has narrated the story to PW1 Hargyan. 21. If PW1 could acquire the knowledge of the murder of Sanjay on the same day, in the normal circumstance, he would have disclosed either to PW1 or someone in the village that he has seen both the accused coming out from the field of Isham Singh and he heard the gunshot there in the field of Isham Singh. Therefore, in our considered opinion, statement of PW2 Mahaveer is not reliable. 22. If prosecution case is roaming around the circumstantial evidence or extra judicial confession, then complete chain of circumstantial evidence should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent evidence and confessional statement made must inspire the confidence. 23. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, alleged confessional statement made before the PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW8 does not inspire any confidence. Therefore, in our considered opinion, prosecution has failed to prove its case. 24. In the result, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Trial Court, is hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender, unless required in any other case. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 25. Let a copy of this judgment, along with LCR, be forwarded to the Trial Court for information.