JUDGMENT : Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Oral). All the three above-titled appeals are being taken up together and adjudicated by this single verdict, for the reason that the same have arisen out of the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, on 25.11.2010. 2. Two Session Trials, one bearing no.282/2000, State v. Sunil, for the offences u/s 302 and 201 IPC (crime no.226/1998) and another bearing no.283/2000, State v. Sunil, for the offence of Section 25 Arms Act (crime no.227/1998), were tried together. The court below did not find any of the offences proved against the respondent/accused Sunil, so he was acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 3. This judgment has been challenged by the State as well as by the informant Nathan Singh by way of above–titled appeals. 4. The edifice of the prosecution story is based on the missing report lodged on 10.10.1998 by Nathan (father of deceased Nitu @ Kaushik) with the facts that on 22.9.1998 at about 11 AM, Master Pintu S/o Kali Sweeper, hailing from the same village, came to his house and persuaded his son to accompany on the pretext that he (victim) was being called by Sunil, who too belonged to the same village. On that very day, Nitu was seen, by the witness Sewa Ram (hailing from the same village), going along-with accused Sunil on his bicycle. They were seen, as such, aheading towards Nasirpur through the canal road. Eversince 22.9.1998, Nitu did not return to his house, so after searching, as long as for almost 18 days, this missing report was lodged. 5. A massive hunt was conducted in search of the missing boy but all went in vain. 6. It all happened that on 22.10.1998 i.e. after 12 days of lodging such report, accused Sunil came to the house of complainant and expressed his remorse for the incident. Accused confessed his guilt in the following words: - “Nitu had an evil eye on his (accused) sister which frowned him a lot. Accused persuaded the deceased to keep himself away from Ms. Seema, but the efforts could not bring colour. So, he hatched a device, as has been disclosed in the missing report and thus, succeeded to call Nitu from his house feigning to make him available a country-made pistol, which was long cherished desire of the deceased. Accused persuaded the deceased to keep himself away from Ms. Seema, but the efforts could not bring colour. So, he hatched a device, as has been disclosed in the missing report and thus, succeeded to call Nitu from his house feigning to make him available a country-made pistol, which was long cherished desire of the deceased. He carried the victim to the desolate jungle of Nasirpur and shot him dead by such weapon. His dead body was left astrayed in the sugarcane field’. 7. Having received this appalling disclosure, informant Nathan, along with two other villagers Sukkad (PW2) and Pala (PW3), carried the accused to the concerned police station and revealed all the things, as also the manner of incident, as adverted above. Accused again gave vent to the same confession in presence of complainant as well as PW2, PW3 nay the concerned Station House Officer besides many other police personnel, who were present there. Accused was immediately arrested on the spot; memo of such arrest is Ex.Ka-6. At his instance, police recovered one wrist watch, a 12 bore pistol (concealed by the accused in the house of his some relation) therewithal the bloodstained clothes, which were identified by PW5 Vijendra (brother of deceased) to be of the victim. Memos were prepared accordingly. That apart, a skeleton was also recovered at the instance of accused on the same day, somewhere in the jungle, which has been linked by the police to be of the deceased boy, without there being any specific evidence in that regard. 8.Investigation culminated into the submission of chargesheet and the Trial Judge levelled the charges accordingly; thereafter, the accused was put to trial. 9. It can very significantly be noted that the most crucial witness was Pintu S/o Kali Sweeper, who came to fetch the deceased and succeeded in his persuasions. However, on account of his death, even before the evidence could commence, that witness could not be produced by the prosecution. 10. Another important witness in this case was Sewa Ram, who saw the deceased going along with the accused on his bicycle. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, this witness too could not be produced. 11. Now, the trustworthy witnesses could have been PW2 Sukkad and PW3 Pala. 10. Another important witness in this case was Sewa Ram, who saw the deceased going along with the accused on his bicycle. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, this witness too could not be produced. 11. Now, the trustworthy witnesses could have been PW2 Sukkad and PW3 Pala. However, both these witnesses have become hostile, inasmuch as, they have refused to identify even the accused in the Court and furthermore, have expressed their inacquaintance with the deceased boy. 12. As such, the only remaining witness is PW4 Nathan (father of victim), who has proved about the confession made by the accused. Such confession, allegedly made by the accused within the precincts of police station and in presence of several police personnel, can hardly be a source of any credence so as to hold the accused guilty. 13. Apart from above, a watch, skeleton and one 12 bore country-made pistol besides bloodstained clothes of victim, including his shirt, undervest and underwear, were allegedly recovered; memos for such recovery, although bear the signature of accused, but he, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has altogether denied preparation of all those papers, much less any such recovery. Thus, these articles cannot be connected with the accused for the simple reason that the main story of taking away the deceased Nitu from his home and thereafter, commission of crime at the hands of accused, has been disbelieved by the Court. 14. In view of what has been set forth above, we find that there is no scope, which calls our interference with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge. With the result, all the three above-titled appeals fail and are thus, dismissed. 15. A copy of this order shall be kept in all the connected matters. 16. Let the LCR, along with copy of this judgment, be sent back to the court concerned.