JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 21.12.2012 rendered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 23/2012, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Jatinder Rawat (deceased), Raju Rawat and Arjun Rawat were employed as workers in the Krishna Foods Products Factory at Muhin, District Kangra. It was owned by PW- 1 Bhag Singh. On 5.6.2011, accused Raju Rawat had gone to Hoshiarpur in connection with factory work. He came back in the evening. He brought a bottle of beer with him. When he reached in the factory, he received information that Sanjay Rana son of Bhag Singh was stranded at place Sunehat due to snag in his vehicle. A vehicle was sent to bring him back. Chuni Lal, Raju Rawat and Dalbir went in the vehicle to Sunehat and brought back Sanjay Rana to his house. In the evening Arjun, Chander Dogra and Jatinder Rawat were taking liquor in the compound of the factory. Altercations took place between accused and Jatinder Rawat on sharing of liquor. Jatinder Rawat was demanding beer from the accused and accused demanded liquor from Jatinder Rawat. Thereafter, all the persons went to sleep. Accused and Jatinder Rawat slept inside the room on upper floor of the factory as all the labourers used to sleep within the campus of factory. In the morning of 6.6.2011, Chuni Lal, cook of the factory, prepared breakfast and in the meantime, Sanjay Rana came there at about 9.00 A.M. Chuni Lal went to the room where Jatinder Rawat and Raju Rawat were sleeping to come down to breakfast. He noticed that Jatinder Rawat was lying dead in the room. Sanjay Rana and Bhag Singh were informed about the occurrence. This incident was told by them to Pradhan Gram Panchayat. She reported the matter to the police. He noticed that Jatinder Rawat was lying dead in the room. Sanjay Rana and Bhag Singh were informed about the occurrence. This incident was told by them to Pradhan Gram Panchayat. She reported the matter to the police. Police visited the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 Bhag Singh under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation was carried out. The accused was found missing. Later on, weapon of offence was recovered and accused after arrest identified the place and weapon. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He has denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Bhag Singh Rana, owner of the Krishna Food Products, Muhin, had employed nine workers. All the workers were residing in the factory. Deceased Jatinder Rawat and accused more often used to sleep in the upper storey of the factory. On 6.6.2011, at about 9.30 a.m., his son Sanjay Rana telephonically informed him that Jitender was lying dead in a room on the upper storey of the factory. He also informed that the blood was oozing out from his neck. After sometime, Chuni Lal also came to him and informed about the incident. He immediately rushed to his factory. He saw deceased Jitender Rawat lying dead in a room on the upper storey of his factory. There was cut injury on his neck and the blood was oozing out from the injury. According to him, Jitender was attacked with some sharp edged weapon. He called the workers of the factory. All the workers except the accused were available. He searched the accused but he was not available. He alongwith his son went to the house of Pradhan Smt. Sneh Lata. The Pradhan informed the police through telephone. According to him, Jitender was attacked with some sharp edged weapon. He called the workers of the factory. All the workers except the accused were available. He searched the accused but he was not available. He alongwith his son went to the house of Pradhan Smt. Sneh Lata. The Pradhan informed the police through telephone. They came back to the spot and in the meantime, the police also arrived at the spot. His statement Ext. PW-1/A was recorded by the police. Police inspected the spot and also took photographs. The police on the spot took into possession one blood stained mattress, trousers lying near the dead body and earphone fitted in the ears of the deceased. The police searched the factory premises and during search a “Chhura” (knife) was recovered from underneath the bed of the room on ground floor of the factory. The police measured the knife. He identified knife Ext. P13. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the morning of 5.6.2011, the accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on his instructions. 8. PW-2 Sanjay Rana is the son of PW-1 Bhag Singh. According to him, on 5.6.2011, he alongwith driver Anoop Kumar had gone to Kangra. The vehicle broke down at Sunehat. He made a telephonic call to Jitender to send another vehicle. After some time, Dalbir came with another vehicle and Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat were also with him. Anoop was left with the vehicle at Sunehat. He alongwith Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat came to the factory in a vehicle brought by Dalbir. They reached at factory at about 5.30 pm. He went to his house. At about 12.30 am, Jitender telephonically informed that nobody is ready to unload the vehicle. He asked him to sleep as the vehicle would be unloaded in the morning. On 6.6.2011, he went to the factory and sent Chuni Lal to call Raju Rawat for breakfast. Chuni Lal came and told him that Jitender Rawat was lying dead and blood was oozing out from his neck. He also told him that Raju Rawat was not available in the room. He immediately went to the room and noticed Jitender Rawat lying dead. He telephonically informed his father and also sent Chuni Lal to inform about the incident to his father. Thereafter, he also went to his house and informed his father about the incident. He also told him that Raju Rawat was not available in the room. He immediately went to the room and noticed Jitender Rawat lying dead. He telephonically informed his father and also sent Chuni Lal to inform about the incident to his father. Thereafter, he also went to his house and informed his father about the incident. He alongwith his father went to the house of Pradhan Smt. Sneh Lata. He has further informed the police on the telephone. Police searched the factory premises and during search, a knife was recovered from underneath the bed of a room in the ground floor of the factory. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Jitender was assigned important work of the factory, therefore his uncle Arjun was not having good terms with him. He has also admitted that they used to quarrel with each other on this issue. He has also admitted that labourers used to take liquor in the factory premises occasionally. He has also admitted that accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2011 but he has denied that he was on leave on that day. 9. PW-3 Sneh Lata has deposed that on 6.6.2011, at about 10.00 am, Bhag Singh PW-1 and Sanjay Rana, PW-2 came to her house and informed that a worker of their factory has been murdered. They also informed that deceased was sleeping with Raju Rawat. She telephonically informed police of police station Jwalamukhi. 10. PW-4 Chuni Lal has deposed that on 5.6.2011, he prepared the food for the workers at about 8.00 pm. Jitender, Arjun and Chander Dogra were taking liquor at that time. He told them that he has prepared the food. Thereafter, he went to sleep. At about 11.00 pm, Dalbir came to him and asked to accompany him to Sunehat to bring bank Sanjay stranded there. One worker, whose nickname was Pandit, drove the vehicle. He alongwith Dalbir and Raju accused went to Sunehat and came back to factory alongwith Sanjay Rana. He alighted from the vehicle near his house. Arjun, Jitender and Chander Dogra were outside the factory when they parked the vehicle. He went to sleep in his room. On 6.6.2011, he prepared the breakfast. In the meantime, Sanjay Rana also came to the factory. At about 9.00 am, he went to the room where Jitender and Raju were sleeping, to call them for breakfast. Arjun, Jitender and Chander Dogra were outside the factory when they parked the vehicle. He went to sleep in his room. On 6.6.2011, he prepared the breakfast. In the meantime, Sanjay Rana also came to the factory. At about 9.00 am, he went to the room where Jitender and Raju were sleeping, to call them for breakfast. When he reached inside the room, he noticed that Jitender was lying dead. He informed Sanjay Rana. He also sent him to call his father. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the night of 5.6.2011, a quarrel had taken place between Arjun and Jitender after taking liquor. He has also admitted that quarrel had taken place between Arjun and Jitender earlier also. He has also admitted that on 5.6.2011, accused had gone to Hoshiarpur, from where he did not come and due to this reason he could not be traced out on 6.6.2011. He has also admitted that he had given statement to the police at the instance of Sanjay Rana. Surprisingly, a court question was put to him that in his examination-in-chief he had stated that accused was also with him when he went to bring Sanjay Rana, but in his cross-examination, he has stated that only he and Lekhu had gone. PW-4 Chuni Lal has answered to the query put by the trial court that he had forgotten the name of the accused, therefore, he did not mention his name in the cross-examination. In his cross-examination, by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW-4 Chuni Lal has stated that Raju was with them and he has forgotten his name. 11. PW-5 Chander Dogra has deposed that on 5.6.2011, he alongwith Arjun Rawat, Chuni Lal and Jitender Rawat were in the factory. Raju Rawat, Dalbir Singh and Brijesh Kumar had gone to Hoshiarpur in a vehicle to bring some material and Anoop Kumar, Virender Kumar and Sanjay Rana had gone towards Kangra for the supply of factory goods. He alongwith Arjun Rawat and Jitender Rawat collected money and brought one bottle of whisky. They started taking liquor in the courtyard of the factory. While they were taking liquor, Raju Rawat Brijesh and Dalbir came back from Hoshiarpur at about 10.30 pm. Accused Raju Rawat was having a bottle of beer with him. He started taking the same in a room where Arjun was residing. They started taking liquor in the courtyard of the factory. While they were taking liquor, Raju Rawat Brijesh and Dalbir came back from Hoshiarpur at about 10.30 pm. Accused Raju Rawat was having a bottle of beer with him. He started taking the same in a room where Arjun was residing. At about 11.30 pm, a telephone call was received from Sanjay Rana that he was stranded at Sunehat due to a snag in his vehicle. He asked for another vehicle to bring him back. On this, Dalbir Singh went to Sunehat alongwith Chuni Lal, but when vehicle came back, accused was also in the vehicle. Perhaps, accused had also gone in a vehicle to bring Sanjay Rana. They had come back within one hour. When they came back, they sat in the courtyard of the factory. There was exchange of hot words between accused and Jitender. The reason for exchange of hot words was that accused asked for whisky from Jitender and Jitender asked for beer from the accused and both refused. Arjun asked them not to pick up quarrel. Thereafter, they went to their respective places. Raju and Jitender had gone to sleep in their room, where they used to sleep. On 6.6.2011 at about 9.00 am, he alongwith Dalbir and Brijesh were awakened by Sanjay Rana and disclosed that Jitender Rawat was lying dead in his room. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2011 but he did not know whether he had taken leave from the owner or not. 12. Statement of PW-6 Ilam Deen is formal in nature. 13. PW-7 Ajay Sehgal has proved report Ext. PW-7/A. 14. Statements of PW-8 Vijay Pal Singh and PW-9, Kuldeep Singh are formal in nature. 15. PW-10 Dalbir Singh has deposed that he alongwith Raju Rawat and Brijesh Kumar had gone to Hoshiarpur to deliver the supply of food products of the factory. They reached the factory at Muhin at about 10.30-11.00 pm. In the factory, Chander Dogra, Jitender Rawat and Arjun Rawat were taking liquor. He and accused took liquor and in the meantime, he was informed by Chander Dogra that the vehicle of Sanjay Rana has developed some mechanical defect at place Sunehat. He alongwith Chuni Lal went to Sunehat in his vehicle to bring Sanjay Rana back. They brought him back to factory. He and accused took liquor and in the meantime, he was informed by Chander Dogra that the vehicle of Sanjay Rana has developed some mechanical defect at place Sunehat. He alongwith Chuni Lal went to Sunehat in his vehicle to bring Sanjay Rana back. They brought him back to factory. He came to know that accused was also sitting in the rear portion of the same vehicle. They reached back after about half an hour. After taking meal, he went to sleep to his room. Accused and Jitender Rawat went to their room. They exchanged hot words in upper floor. Arjun Rawat was asking them not to pick up quarrel. On the next morning, he came to know that accused Raju Rawat has fled away from the factory after committing murder of deceased. 16. Statement of PW-11 Mohammad Husain is formal in nature. 17. PW-12 Dr. Mrs. Anita Mahajan has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. According to her opinion, the cause of death was shock due to incised wound on the neck. 18. Statements of PW-13 Desh Raj, PW-14 Kuldeep Kumar and PW-15 Deep Raj are formal in nature. 19. PW-16 SI Shanker Singh has deposed that on 15.6.2011, MHC, Police Station Jawalamukhi handed over to him the case file for investigation as ASI Rafo Dass, who was investing the case was transferred. He received the report Ex.PW-16/A from R.F.S.L. Dharamshala. Final opinion of the doctors Gurmeet Singh and Anita Mahajan was procured on PMR Ex.PW- 12/B. The accused was arrested on 28.9.2011 at about 10.00 P.M. at Bus Stand, Kangra. 20. Statement of PW-17 Inspector Sarwan Kumar is formal in nature. 21. PW-18 Arjun Rawat has deposed that he was working in Krishna Food Products Factory, Muhin. Jitender Rawat and Raju accused also used to work in the same factory. On 5.6.2011, accused Raju Rawat had gone to Hoshiarpur alongwith Brijesh and Dalbir Singh to bring raw material. Sanjay Rana, Virender and Anup Kumar had gone to deliver the supply. Chuni Lal, Chander Dogra, Jitender Kumar and he were present in the factory. In the evening at about 8.00 P.M., he, Chander Dogra and Jitender Rawat collected money and brought the liquor. They were taking liquor in the courtyard of the factory. Chuni Lal was preparing the meal. At about 10.00 P.M. accused Raju Rawat, Lekhu and Brijesh came back from Hoshiarpur. In the evening at about 8.00 P.M., he, Chander Dogra and Jitender Rawat collected money and brought the liquor. They were taking liquor in the courtyard of the factory. Chuni Lal was preparing the meal. At about 10.00 P.M. accused Raju Rawat, Lekhu and Brijesh came back from Hoshiarpur. Raju Rawat had brought a bottle of beer with him. Accused went in a room in the ground floor of the factory. On the same night, at about 11.30 P.M. Sanjay Rana informed Brijesh to bring the vehicle to Sunehat. Dalbir, Chuni Lal and Brijesh went to Sunehat in the vehicle and accused also boarded on the rear part of the vehicle. They came back in the same vehicle. Accused started taking liquor in his room. He alongwith Jitender Rawat and Chander Dogra was taking liquor in the courtyard. Jitender Rawat asked the accused to give him beer, but the accused refused. Thereafter, there were exchange of hot words between accused Raju Rawat and Jitender Rawat. He asked them not to pick up the quarrel. They took meal and he went to his room to sleep. Accused was searching for something in his bag, which was kept by him in his room. On the next morning, Sanjay Rana, owner of the factory came at about 8.30 A.M. He told that Jitender Rawat has been killed. Accused was found missing in the morning. A knife was found kept under the bed in his room. He also found in the morning that Rs. 200/- from his purse and Rs. 4000/- from his briefcase were missing. 22. PW-19 ASI Raffo Dass has deposed that on 6.6.2011 at about 10.30 A.M. telephonic information was received from Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Muhin that in the factory of Bhag Singh, one labourer was found dead. He alongwith police officials went to the spot. Site plan was prepared. Recoveries were made from the spot. The knife was recovered from a room, which was in the ground floor of the factory and the same was kept under the bed. The photograph of knife Ex.PW-19/A-9 was also taken. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not taken fingerprints from the spot. He has also admitted that no fingerprints were found on the knife Ex.P-13. 23. The photograph of knife Ex.PW-19/A-9 was also taken. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not taken fingerprints from the spot. He has also admitted that no fingerprints were found on the knife Ex.P-13. 23. PW-20 ASI Raghubir Singh has deposed that accused Raju Rawat made statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/J in the presence of witnesses Bhag Singh and Sanjay Rana that he could get the place identified where he has killed Jitender Rawat on the intervening night of 5/6.6.2011 with the knife and the place where he has hidden the knife. On the same day, he visited the spot, i.e. Krishna Food Products Factory at the instance of accused. Fard Nishandehi Ex.PW-1/K was prepared in the presence of the witnesses Bhag Singh and Sanjay Rana. Spot map Ex.PW-20/A was prepared. Supplementary statements of Bhag Singh and Sanjay Rana were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30.9.2011. 24. According to PW-1 Bhag Singh, he was informed by his son and PW-4 Chuni Lal about the murder of Jatinder Rawat in the factory premises. His statement was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He informed PW-3 Smt. Sneh Lata about the incident. He came back to the spot. Police searched the factory premises and during search police recovered one Chhura (knife) from underneath the bed from the ground floor of the factory. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that in the morning of previous day, i.e. 5.6.2011, accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on his instructions. PW-2 Sanjay Rana has deposed that he had gone to Kangra to make supply. His vehicle developed snag. He made a telephone call to Jatinder Rawat to send another vehicle. After sometime, Dalbir came with another vehicle. Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat were also with him. They reached factory at about 5.30 P.M. He went to his house. He came to know about the incident on 6.6.2011. He has also deposed that the police had searched the premises and the knife was recovered. He has admitted in his cross-examination that accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2011, but denied the suggestion that he was on leave on that day. PW-4 Chuni Lal has deposed that at 11.00 P.M. Dalbir came to him and asked to accompany him to Sunehat to bring back Sanjay Rana. He has admitted in his cross-examination that accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2011, but denied the suggestion that he was on leave on that day. PW-4 Chuni Lal has deposed that at 11.00 P.M. Dalbir came to him and asked to accompany him to Sunehat to bring back Sanjay Rana. One worker whose nick name was Pandit drove the vehicle and he alongwith Dalbir and Raju went to Sunehat. They came back to the factory alongwith Sanjay Rana. On 6.6.2011, he prepared the breakfast and in the meantime Sanjay Rana also came to the factory. He went to a room where Jatinder and Raju were sleeping to call them for breakfast. When he reached inside the room, he noticed that Jatinder was lying dead. However, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that in the night of 5.6.2011, a quarrel had taken place between Arjun and Jatinder after taking liquor. He has admitted that after taking leave from the owner, accused had gone to Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2011. He has also admitted that he and Lekhu only had gone to bring Sanjay Rana in a vehicle. We have already noticed that the trial judge had put a question to PW-4 Chuni Lal that why he has not named the accused in the cross-examination, to which he replied that he had forgotten the name of the accused. The examination of the witnesses is primarily to be undertaken by the learned advocates for the parties. The Judge may occasionally ask supplementary question to discover the truth. His role while putting the question is not to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. 25. Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Sunil Chandra Roy and another vs. The State, AIR 1954 Calcutta 305 has held that a Judge’s right to put questions to witness is expressly recognized by section 165 of the Evidence Act. However, while theoretically the powers of the Judge are limitless and unfettered, certain principles have come to be recognized which he must follow as to the manner in which he exercised the power. He must not take side, but he must not also “descend into the area” and forsake the judicial calm for the zeal of a combatant. Division Bench has held as under: “[31] The right of a Judge to put questions to witnesses is given to him by Section 165, Evidence Act. He must not take side, but he must not also “descend into the area” and forsake the judicial calm for the zeal of a combatant. Division Bench has held as under: “[31] The right of a Judge to put questions to witnesses is given to him by Section 165, Evidence Act. The section says that he may "in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact, relevant or irrelevant". The rest of the section and the provisos thereto are not material here. The history of the section shows that it was enacted in that wide form, because in 1872 it was thought that in many of the courts of the country where lawyers of the lower ranks practised, neither were cases properly prepared, nor witnesses properly examined, so that it was necessary to vest the Judge with an over-all power to get at the truth by asking any questions he liked. But although a great deal of time has since passed, the section has remained on the statute-book and its provisions are in substantial agreement with the English law on the subject. The powers conferred by the section can therefore still be claimed and exercised. It is obvious that the Judge contemplated by the section is not a mere umpire at a wit-combat between the lawyers for the parties whose only duty is to enforce the rules of the game and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost. He is expected, and indeed it is his duty, to explore all avenues open to him in order to discover the truth and, to that end, question witnesses on points which the lawyers for the parties have either overlooked or left obscure or willfully avoided. It has been said that it is particularly necessary that the Judge should exercise this power in a jury trial, because it is his duty to aid the jury in obtaining a proper comprehension of the facts which they, as laymen, can do only if the facts are laid bare, with the implications not left as such but fully brought out and with the false suggestions eliminated. If therefore the Judge finds that the examination of a witness is not being conducted in such a way as to unfold the truth, it is not only his right but his duty to intervene with his own questions, particularly at a jury trial. [32] But while theoretically the powers of the Judges are limitless and unfettered, certain principles have come to be recognised which he must follow as to the manner in which he exercises the power. It need hardly be pointed out that he must not take side; but he must not also "descend into the arena" and forsake the judicial calm for the zeal of a combatant. If he does so and questions witnesses in the spirit of beating them down or encouraging them to give an answer, his action may have an intimidating or inflatory effect upon them and their evidence may not be the evidence they would have given, if not so intimidated or encouraged. I do not think that the consideration that the Judge may, by indulging in a general examination of witnesses, disable himself to take a detached view of their demeanour, has much force in the case of a jury trial, because the ultimate judges of their credibility are the jujors who are left free to watch them. But the demeanour of the witnesses may itself be affected by the authority of the Judge, if he exercises it excessively in questioning them. Again, although the law allows the Judge to put any question at any time, the time generally considered proper for an extended examination is when the lawyers for the parties have finished their questions or at least when the lawyer, examining the witness at the time, is passing on to a new subject. The Judge may always intervene, in the course of examination by Counsel, to put a question in a clearer form or to have an obscuse answer clarified or to prevent a witness being unfairly misled, but if he does more and stops Counsel again and again to put a long series of his own questions, he makes an effective examination or cross-examination impossible and diverts the trial from its natural course. [33] These principles which have been evolved put of practical experience will be found stated in several decisions, among which the leading authority now is -- 'Yuill v. Yuill', (1945) 1 All ER 183 (H). [33] These principles which have been evolved put of practical experience will be found stated in several decisions, among which the leading authority now is -- 'Yuill v. Yuill', (1945) 1 All ER 183 (H). There is an early Calcutta decision in - - 'Noor Bux Kazi v. Emperor', 6 Cal 279 (I) and a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in -- 'Yusuf H. Abbas v. Bhagwandas P. Nangpal'. AIR 1949 Bom 346 (J & K). These decisions can be read in the books and I do not propose to refer to them further. But there had been two -recent decisions in England which have rot been reported in any legal journal and which concerned the same learned Judge who had been concerned in the earlier case of 'Yuill v. Yuill (H)'. I found references to them in the editorial notes of the "Law Times" where it was stated that they had been reported in "The Times" of certain dates and on my passing on the references to the Bar, the learned Counsel for the defence were able to trace one of them, viz., 'Harris v. Harris', decided by Singleton, Birkett and Hodson L. JJ., and reported in 'The Times' of 9-4- 1952. As the decision, so far as I am aware, is not to be found in the reports, I shall take the liberty of quoting the observations of Birkett L. J. Being given in a newspaper report, they are in the form of an indirect narration : "The transcript of the shorthand note of the evidence showed quite plainly that all the witnesses were questioned by the learned Judge in such a manner and to such an extent that the conduct of the case was virtually taken out of the hands of the Counsel altogether. The duty of the Judge to keep complete control at the proceedings before him was an essential part of the administration of justice in all our courts. He had a duty to intervene by way of questions or otherwise at any time that he deemed it necessary so to do. He might wish to make obscurities in the evidence - clear and intelligible; he might wish to probe a little further into matters that he deemed important and in a score of ways his interventions might be both desirable and beneficial. He might wish to make obscurities in the evidence - clear and intelligible; he might wish to probe a little further into matters that he deemed important and in a score of ways his interventions might be both desirable and beneficial. But it was safe to say that all his interventions must be overned by the supreme duty to see that a fair trial was enjoyed by the parties. His interventions must be interventions and not a complete usurpation of the functions of counsel. The task of eliciting the truth was assigned to Counsel by the method of examination-in-chief and perhaps particularly by cross-examination. In performing this task, Counsel might be gentle or stern, hostile or friendly, as the occasion and the circumstances warranted. But the Judge best served the administration of justice by preserving the judicial calm and the judicial demeanour, aloof and detached from the arena of contention. In the present case, the parties came from comparatively humble walks of life. They had received legal aid in order to come to the courts at all. Such people were unaccustomed to the proceedings of the courts and they were likely to be overawed or frightened or confused or distressed when under the ordeal of prolonged questioning from the presiding judge. Moreover when the questioning took on a sarcastic or ironic note as was sometimes inevitable, the danger was not only that witnesses would be unable to present the evidence as they would wish but the parties might begin to think, quite wrongly it might be, that the judge was not holding the scales of justice quite evenly. In the kind of case before the court where the issues were of very great moment to the parties, touching their future welfare and happiness, it was peculiarly incumbent on the learned Judge to exercise restraint and to avoid the criticism made in this case that he had debarred himself from the exercise of the judicial faculty by the part he played at the hearing." [36] There is another reason why, I think, no mis-trial can be made out from the manner in which the learned Judge interrogated the medical witnesses. The conception of the function of medical evidence on which the two doctor witnesses were cross-examined, appears to me to have been entirely mistaken and even if some over-interrogation by the learned Judge took place on irrelevant matters introduced by the defence itself, such over-interrogation cannot be said to have affected the merits of the trial. Where there are alleged eye-witnesses of physical violence which is said to have caused a person's death, the value of medical evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and death could have been caused by the injuries so that the prosecution case being consistent with matters verifiable by the medical science, there is no reason why the eye-witnesses should not be believed. The medical evidence does not itselt prove the prosecution case. The use which the defence can make of medical evidence is to prove by it that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged or death could not possibly have been caused by the injuries and if it can do so, it discredits the eye-witnesses. More it is not required to do, but less is of no use to it. If it can only prove that the injuries or the death could also have been due to other causes, it proves nothing, because thereby the version of the eye-witnesses is not dislodged and they are not discredited. But if it can prove that the injuries or the death could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged, it is wholly irrelevant to try to prove in what other way or ways they could have been caused. In the present case, the evidence of Dr. Majumdar in his examination-in-chief was that a fracture of the temporal bone might be caused by a blow, that the facial injuries were likely to have been caused by some rough substance and death could have been caused by those injuries in the other conditions found. In cross-examination he said that the particular fracture could not have been caused by a fist blow, that the facial injuries could not have been caused by a rod and that all the injuries were due to one and the same cause which was likely to have been a fall. So far, the cross-examination is intelligible. Dr. In cross-examination he said that the particular fracture could not have been caused by a fist blow, that the facial injuries could not have been caused by a rod and that all the injuries were due to one and the same cause which was likely to have been a fall. So far, the cross-examination is intelligible. Dr. Hossain who said that the facial injuries could have been caused by a flexible rod and the fracture could have been caused by a fist blow, admitted in the cross-examination that the latter could also have been caused by a fall. That cross-examination, although the result does not help the defence, is also intelligible. But why anybody should go further and introduce coronary thrombosis or syncope or a seizure of the heart, it is wholly impossible to see. If the fist blow and the rod blow were excluded, the prosecution case was falsified and it was then immaterial to the defence in what other ways the injuries or the fall might have been caused, because their case was an 'alibi' and not a case that there had been an altercation with the appellants in the course of which the Colonel had suddenly dropped down. Most of the questions of the learned Judge were directed at eliminating the irrelevan-lies and I do not think it can be said that the merits of the trial were affected. Nor can any complaint be made that he himself introduced a theory of counter-coup action, because he made the suggestion only when Dr. Majumdar, after saying that all the injuries were caused by a fall, required a theory, to explain an impact on one side of the head causing a fracture on the other.” 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036 have held that any questions put by the Judge must be so as not to frighten, coerce, confuse or intimidate the witnesses. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. The adversary system of trial being what it is, there is an unfortunate tendency for a judge presiding over a trial to assume the role of a referee or an umpire and to allow the trial to develop into a contest between the prosecution and the defence with the inevitable distortions flowing from combative and competitive elements entering the trial procedure. If a Criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice the presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth. As one of us had occasion to say in the past : "Every Criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. It is the duty of a presiding Judge to explore every avenue open to him in order to discover the truth and to advance the cause of justice. For that purpose he is expressly invested by Section 165 of the Evidence Act with the right to put questions to witnesses. Indeed the right given to a Judge is so wide that he may ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact, relevant or irrelevant. Section 172 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the Court to send for the police-diaries in a case and use them to aid it in the trial. The record of the proceedings of the committing Magistrate may also be perused by the Sessions Judge to further aid him in the trial". (Sessions Judge, Nellore v. Intna Ramana Reddy, ILR (1972) Andh Pra 683). 3. With such wide powers the Court must actively participate in the trial, to elicit the truth and to protect the weak and the innocent. It must, of course, not assume the role of a prosecutor in putting questions. The functions of the counsel, particularly those of the Public Prosecutor, are not to be usurped by the judge, by descending into the arena as it were. Any questions put by the judge must be so as not to frighten, coerce, confuse or intimidate the witnesses. The danger inherent in a judge adopting a much too stern an attitude towards witnesses has been explained by Lord Justice Birkett : "People accustomed to the procedure of the Court are likely to be over-awed or frightened, or confused. or distressed when under the ordeal of prolonged questioning from the presiding, judge. The danger inherent in a judge adopting a much too stern an attitude towards witnesses has been explained by Lord Justice Birkett : "People accustomed to the procedure of the Court are likely to be over-awed or frightened, or confused. or distressed when under the ordeal of prolonged questioning from the presiding, judge. Moreover, when the questioning takes on a sarcastic or ironic tone as it is apt to do, or when it takes on a hostile note as is sometimes almost inevitable, the danger is not only that witnesses will be unable to present the evidence as they may wish, but the parties may begin to think quite wrongly it may be, that the judge is not holding the scales of justice quite eventually". Extracted by Lord Denning in Jones v. National Coal Board. ((1957) 2 All ER 155) (supra). In Jones v. National Coal Board, Lord Justice Denning observed : "The Judge's part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure; to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law; to exclude irrelevancies and discourage repetition; to make sure by wise intervention that he follows the points that the advocates are making and can assess their worth; and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If lie goes beyond this, he drops the mantle of the Judge and assumes the robe of an advocate; and the change does not become him well". We may go further than Lord Denning and say that it is the duty of a judge to discover the truth and for that purpose he may "ask any question, in any form, at any time, of any witness or of the parties, about any fact, relevant or irrelevant" (Sec. 165, Evidence Act). But this he must do, without unduly trespassing upon the functions of the public prosecutor and the defence counsel, without any hint of partisanship and without appearing to frighten or bully witnesses. He must take the prosecution and the defence with him. The Court the prosecution and the defence must work as a team whose goal is justice, a team whose captain is the judge. He must take the prosecution and the defence with him. The Court the prosecution and the defence must work as a team whose goal is justice, a team whose captain is the judge. The judge, 'like the conductor of a choir, must, by force of personality, induce his team to work in harmony; subdue the raucous. encourage the timid, conspire with the young, flatter the old". 8. The questions put by the learned Sessions Judge, particularly the threats held out to the witnesses that if they changed their statements they would involve themselves in prosecutions for perjury were certainly intimidating, coming as they did from the presiding judge. The learned Sessions Judge appeared to have become irate that the witnesses were not sticking to the statements made by them under Sections 161 and 164 and were probably giving false evidence before him. In an effort to compel them to speak what he thought must be the truth, the learned Sessions Judge very wrongly, in our opinion firmly rebuked them and virtually threatened them with prosecutions for perjury. He left his seat and entered the ring, we may say. The principle of 'fair trial' was abandoned. We find it impossible to justify the attitude adopted by the Sessions Judge and we also find it impossible to accept any portion of the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9, the two alleged eye-witnesses. 27. The power under section 165 of the Evidence Act is vested to put question but the trial judge has to avoid filling up the lacuna in the case of prosecution, as has happened in this case. PW-4 Chuni Lal in his examination has deposed that accused had also gone to bring PW-2 Sanjay Rana back to the factory, but in his cross-examination, he has deposed that accused had not gone to bring PW-2 Sanjay Rana back to the factory. 28. According to PW-5 Chander Dogra, Dalbir Singh went to Sunehat alongwith Chuni Lal, but when the vehicle came back, accused was also in the vehicle. When only Dalbir Singh and Chuni Lal had gone in the vehicle, how the accused could come also in the same vehicle. Similarly, PW-10 Dalbir Singh has deposed that he alongwith Chuni Lal went to Sunehat in a vehicle to bring Sanjay Rana. When only Dalbir Singh and Chuni Lal had gone in the vehicle, how the accused could come also in the same vehicle. Similarly, PW-10 Dalbir Singh has deposed that he alongwith Chuni Lal went to Sunehat in a vehicle to bring Sanjay Rana. When he came back to the factory, he came to know that the accused was also sitting in the rear portion of the same vehicle. It is not believable that when only two persons, namely, Dalbir Singh and Chuni Lal had gone to Sunehat, how they could miss that accused was also sitting in the rear portion of the vehicle. It emerges from the cross-examination of PW-4 Chuni Lal that only he and Lekhu had gone to bring Sanjay Rana in the vehicle and the accused was not present with them. Similarly, from the statement of PW- 5 Chander Dogra it is doubtful that accused had gone to bring back Sanjay Rana from Sunehat. PW-18 Arjun Rawat has stated in his examination-in-chief that Dalbir, Chuni Lal and Brijesh went to Sunehat in the vehicle and the accused also boarded in the rear part of the vehicle. There are major contradictions in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses whether the accused had boarded the vehicle in question to bring back Sanjay Rana. It has come in the statement of PW-5 Chander Dogra that in the evening of 5.6.2011, a quarrel had taken place between Arjun and Jatinder after taking liquor. 29. According to PW-5 Chander Dogra, accused and deceased went to the room in the upper storey. The weapon of offence, i.e. Chhura (knife) has been recovered from the ground floor underneath the bed. We have gone through the spot map prepared on the spot from where the dead body and Chhura were recovered. It is not believable why the accused would enter the room where the other workers were present if he had committed murder to conceal the weapon of offence. Normally, human conduct would have been to flee from the spot instead of coming down to the room where the other workers were sleeping and got noticed. 30. Case of the prosecution, which can be culled out from the material on record is also that the vehicle of PW-2 Sanjay Rana broke down and he informed the workers to send an alternative vehicle. PW-2 Sanjay Rana, as noticed hereinabove, had gone to Kangra for making supply. 30. Case of the prosecution, which can be culled out from the material on record is also that the vehicle of PW-2 Sanjay Rana broke down and he informed the workers to send an alternative vehicle. PW-2 Sanjay Rana, as noticed hereinabove, had gone to Kangra for making supply. His vehicle developed technical snag at Sunehat. He asked Jatinder to send another vehicle. After sometime, Dalbir came with another vehicle and Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat were also with him. Anoop was left with the vehicle at Sunehat. He alongwith Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat came to factory in a vehicle brought by Dalbir. They reached at factory at about 5.30 p.m. and he went to his house. According to PW-4 Chuni Lal, PW-5 Chander Dogra, PW-10 Dalbir Singh and PW-18 Arjun Rawat, the phone call was received from PW-2 Sanjay Rana after 11.00 P.M. and thereafter few workers had gone to bring PW-2 Sanjay Rana back to the factory premises. If PW-2 Sanjay Rana alongwith Chuni Lal and Raju Rawat came back to the factory at 5.30 P.M. where was the occasion for rest of the workers to go to Sunehat to bring back PW-2 Sanjay Rana at 11.30 P.M. The prosecution has tried to prove that the accused was present on the spot, but we are of the considered view that the presence of the accused on the spot on the intervening night of 5/6.6.2011 is doubtful in view of the contradictions, embellishments and improvements made by the witnesses, as discussed hereinabove. 31. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has to prove the entire chain of events pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. However, we hasten to add that if the chain of events is complete, motive may not be necessary. In the instant case, the motive attributed to the accused is very flimsy. The motive attributed to the accused for committing the murder of Jatinder deceased is that accused was taking beer and he asked for whisky from the deceased. Jatinder refused to part with the whisky and thereafter they went to sleep. 32. In the instant case, the motive attributed to the accused is very flimsy. The motive attributed to the accused for committing the murder of Jatinder deceased is that accused was taking beer and he asked for whisky from the deceased. Jatinder refused to part with the whisky and thereafter they went to sleep. 32. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 33. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2012 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2012 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if already deposited, be refunded to the accused. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 34. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.