JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21/3/2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.27/2010 by which learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in event of default and acquitting co-accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak. 2. In nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that complainant Shanti Devi wife of deceased Chandra Prakash was at her residence with her son Kishan Lal and other kids, On 7/9/2009, at about 7:45 p.m. Ravi Nayak and Pintu @ Rupesh came there on a strange kind of motorcycle and after calling her son Kishanlal threatened him by saying that why he causes quarrel and displeasure at his home, we retorted that it was our personal affair, meanwhile, pillion rider of the motorcycle, Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu stabbed her son Kishanlal in the stomach, who felt down bleedingly and both fled away. She got her son Kishan admitted in Government Hospital, Sriganganagar with the help of some neighbours for the treatment, who succumbed to his injuries. Ravi Nayak and Rupesh @ Pintu wittingly stabbed her son Kishan in his stomach and have killed him. The FIR was registered at No.248/2009 under Section 302/34 coupled with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu under section 302/34 of IPC coupled with 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak was charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 of IPC and were subsequently charged for these offences by the trial Court. Prosecution produced as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited thirty seven documents, six articles were also produced and exhibited in the trial Court. 3. Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that all the important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, even the witnesses relating to the alleged recovery have also not supported the story of the prosecution nor they have supported alleged recovery, despite the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused. 3. Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that all the important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, even the witnesses relating to the alleged recovery have also not supported the story of the prosecution nor they have supported alleged recovery, despite the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused. Learned counsel has further argued that the kind of the weapon i.e. knife, which has stated to have been recovered, does not match with the alleged weapon, which has produced by the prosecution, moreover, the piece of cloth, which is said to be the covering of the alleged knife, is also devoid of blood stains, which makes the entire story of the recovery of blood stained knife untrustworthy. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying the verdict in case of Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 has argued that the recovery of alleged knife has been made after lapse of several months, which too creates doubt on the truthfulness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case because all the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story, even recovery witnesses have turned hostile, notwithstanding the trial court has erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction, which is not sustainable at all in the eye of law, so the appeal may be accepted and the impugned judgment may be quashed and the accused-appellant be acquitted. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor has submitted that there is no error in the findings of the learned trial court. The investigating Officer has proved the recovery of the knife, which has been found blood blotted and the FSL report has also corroborated the same. The conviction can very well be based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the learned trial court has not committed any error. Appeal is not worthy to be accepted, so it be dismissed and the order of learned trial court be upheld. 4. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned public prosecutor and have scrutinised and assessed the entire evidence available on the record. 5. All the material witnesses of the prosecution have not corroborated the story of the prosecution and have become hostile. 4. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned public prosecutor and have scrutinised and assessed the entire evidence available on the record. 5. All the material witnesses of the prosecution have not corroborated the story of the prosecution and have become hostile. Mother, wife, daughter and son of the deceased have declined to have witnessed any incident and have controverted such recitals, which have been reduced into writing in Parchabayan and have specifically denied to have earlier uttered anything alike. 6. Perusal of the evidence discloses that Complainant Shanti @ Girdhawari has said that she had gone in her relations in neighbourhood in her back and absence, two persons came and injured her son by stabbing but the injury was not caused before her and she did not witness the same. She has further said that accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak and Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu have not caused any stab injury to her son and she has declined even their acquaintance. PW.3 Deepak son of the deceased has also become hostile and he has said that he does not know to the accused persons present in the Court and has said that he did not observe any dispute or scuffle and who caused injuries to his father is also not known to him. Likewise PW.2 Pooja daughter of the deceased, a child witness has also remained hostile and has denied having seen any incident and has also said that she did not see as to who caused injuries or scuffled with her father. PW.1 Smt. Radha wife of the deceased Krishan Lal has also said that deceased was her husband, serving with a grocery shop and at the time of incident, she was inside her house, so could not see the assailants and has said that accused Rupesh @ Pintu and Ravi Nayak, who are present in the Court, did not stab her husband. 7. PW.5 Subhash, a neighbour of the deceased, has also said that he did not see anybody stabbing or beating the deceased nor witnessed anybody causing stabbing, this witness has also become hostile and has declined several utterances as recorded in Parchabayan. 7. PW.5 Subhash, a neighbour of the deceased, has also said that he did not see anybody stabbing or beating the deceased nor witnessed anybody causing stabbing, this witness has also become hostile and has declined several utterances as recorded in Parchabayan. Likewise PW.6 Surendra Kumar, another neighbour of the deceased, has denied to see any dispute or quarrel and has further said that he does not know, as to who killed Krishan Lal. PW.7 Narendra Singh has also become hostile and PW.8 Tara Chand has also not supported the story of the prosecution and both these witnesses have become hostile. PW.10 Prabhuram & PW.11 Rajpal are police constables pertaining to deposit of the FSLs. 8. PW.12 & PW.13 Ashgar Khan and Gopi Ram, important witnesses of recovery of the alleged dagger have also become hostile and have said that no such recovery of dagger was made on the instance of Rupesh @ Pintu before them and the alleged knife was neither sealed before them nor the spot map was drawn before them and have also said that their signatures were taken on Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 coercive on blank papers by police because they was threatened to be involved under vagabancy, on denial. 9. PW.14 Rajendra Singh, the then Investigator, has said that Rupesh was arrested vide Ex.P.25 and Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak vide Ex.P.26 and has said that on the information provided by Rupesh @ Pintu vide Ex.P.27, a "knife" was got recovered from his house vide Ex.P.22, which was kept in a plastic bag and was sealed there. He has also said that it bears evidence of Ashghar Khan and Gopi Ram, who were present, but both these witnesses Ashghar Khan and Gopi Ram, who have been produced by prosecution as PW.12 and PW.13 as discussed above, have declined recovery of any such "dagger" before them or getting it sealed there. He has also said that it bears evidence of Ashghar Khan and Gopi Ram, who were present, but both these witnesses Ashghar Khan and Gopi Ram, who have been produced by prosecution as PW.12 and PW.13 as discussed above, have declined recovery of any such "dagger" before them or getting it sealed there. Preparation of Ex.P.23, spot map of the said recovery has also been declined by both these witnesses and both recovery witnesses have rather said that their signatures were forcibly taken on Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 under threat, so the evidence of this investigator pertaining to the recovery of dagger becomes highly doubtful because the recovery has also been made after a lapse of about five and half month on 25.02.2010 and methodology and manner of the recovery of alleged dagger has also not been disclosed and narrated by this witness as to from which precise place the said dagger was recovered. PW.15 is another IO of the case, stating the sequence of the investigation and ratifying the exhibits thereto. 10. The recovery witness relating to blood spotted shirt of accused PW.8 Tara Chand has become hostile, so reliance on any fragmented verbatim of this witness is not safe. Moreover, even the recovery of dagger has been made vide Ex. 22 on 23.02.2010 after a gap of about five and a half month since the incident relates to 07.09.2009 so, the same does not appears to be reliable. 11. In Narendra Singh and Another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has recognised presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger then a judgment of acquittal is passed. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger then a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the postmortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld." 12. PW.9 Dr. S.M. Batra is a medical expert conducting postmortem of the deceased, has said that the cause of death is injury to the spleen, but he has also narrated that such kind of injury could also be caused because of a fall from ascending on a sharp edged object. 13. Careful scrutiny of the entire afore-discussed evidence depicts that all the material, ocular and important witnesses, even the author of the FIR have not supported the version of the prosecution. Blood relatives of the deceased i.e. his mother Shanti @ Girdhawari, his wife Radha, his son Deepak and even his minor daughter Pooja have become hostile and have candidly uttered that they did not witness the assailants and have even denied involvement of the accused in the incident. The neighbours of the deceased have also become hostile. 14. Blood relatives of the deceased i.e. his mother Shanti @ Girdhawari, his wife Radha, his son Deepak and even his minor daughter Pooja have become hostile and have candidly uttered that they did not witness the assailants and have even denied involvement of the accused in the incident. The neighbours of the deceased have also become hostile. 14. Important witnesses of the recovery of dagger PW.12 and PW.13 Ashghar Khan and Gopi Ram pertaining to Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 have also become hostile and have categorically denied any recovery of the "dagger" before them and have even uttered to this extend that their signatures were taken under pressure of threat, in such scenario it is not safe to rely on the findings of FSL report, then recovery of the said dagger has become dubious, hence anything opined on these recoveries have become rather unreliable, medical expert conducting autopsy of the body has also opined that kind of injuries as found on the corpus could accreted even because of a fall from height on a pointed object. Thus, the appellant-accused is entitled to be seen with the view supportive innocence, because all material, ocular, and important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile. By dint of totality of the evidence discussed it could rightly be deduced that the prosecution has drastically failed to establish its case against the appellant-accused and fragile evidence of the prosecution is not capable to connect the Appellant-Accused with the alleged crime, so the appellant-accused deserves to be acquitted. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment erroneously and the findings of the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 21/3/2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.27/2010 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside, the appellant-accused be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 21/3/2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.27/2010 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside, the appellant-accused be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.