ORDER : The appellant-Narinderpal Singh has been convicted by the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 for murder of one Gobind Singh son of Bant Singh and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 148 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year respectively. The detailed narration of the facts is not necessary. 2. The main feature of the prosecution story is that Bant Singh (since deceased) had a son Gobind Singh who used to go to Rajindra College for playing along with his friends. On 07.10.1999, they went to play. At 2 O'Clock Bant Singh had gone to college to give a message to his son. He said to have seen Jaspal Singh @ Palli, son of Jang Singh, armed with a Danda, Shamsher Singh @ Sheru, son of Hardev Singh, armed with a hockey and Narinderpal Singh, son of Ralla Singh, armed with a Kirch. Narinderpal Singh is the appellant before us. There were others also who armed with hockey sticks, soti etc. encircled his son Gobind Singh. The appellant, Narinderpal Singh gave a blow with his kirch which hit him on his right flank. When Narinderpal Singh gave a second blow with his kirch, Jaspal Singh @ Palli came and prevented it by making the way. Gobind Singh later died in the hospital. 3. The motive for commission of the offence was said to be a love affair of Gobind Singh witha girl, who was the sister of Vicky Yadav. The complainant Bant Singh who claimed to have seen the incident expired before the completion of the trial and he could not depose. The other two eye-witnesses were Malkeet Singh (P.W.3) and Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.7). 4. Malkeet Singh's testimony, though relied upon by the Trial Court, was discarded by the High Court on the ground that his very presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful. The High Court had observed that Malkeet Singh was residing in the house of the complainant-Bant Singh whose son was murdered. His name could not have been left out by Bant Singh in the FIR and his statement to the police. The High Court had observed that Malkeet Singh was residing in the house of the complainant-Bant Singh whose son was murdered. His name could not have been left out by Bant Singh in the FIR and his statement to the police. His name was neither found in the inquest report nor was mentioned in the record of the hospital, though Malkeet Singh claimed to have taken the deceased to the hospital. Though the incident took place on 07.10.1999, Malkeet Singh's statement seemed to have been recorded for the first time on 07.07.2004. Significantly, the supplementary challans were presented on 06.02.2000 and 28.07.2000. The name of Malkeet Singh was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. We are of the view that the High Court was right in disbelieving that Malkeet Singh was an eye-witness to the occurrence. 5. The only other witness who claimed that Narinderpal Singh had committed the murder was Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.7). A close scrutiny of his deposition did not disclose that he was an eye-witness of the attack which resulted in the death of Narinderpal Singh. The only thing he had stated was that when he approached the Rajendra College he noticed Vicky Yadav and the appellant, Narinderpal Singh coming out of the college; that Narinderpal Singh was holding a blood-strained Kirch in his hands and they were accompanied by 7 or 8 persons; and that Vicky Yadav told him that he had taken revenge on Gobind Singh who had not stopped chasing his sister. We find that this is a thin evidence to sustain his conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and a consequential sentence of life imprisonment. In this case, there is no eye-witness at all to the incident. Bant Singh expired before the completion of the trial. Malkeet Singh for good reasons has been discarded as a planted witness by the High Court and the only other deposition, i.e. of Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.7) is extremely indirect and in any case not the evidence of one who has seen the incident himself. This circumstance however, does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant-Narinderpal Singh who assaulted Gobind Singh and delivered the fatal blow. It is not impossible to conceive that Narinderpal Singh might have been asked to hold the blood-stained kirch by others who had accompanied him when Malkeet Singh saw him. This circumstance however, does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant-Narinderpal Singh who assaulted Gobind Singh and delivered the fatal blow. It is not impossible to conceive that Narinderpal Singh might have been asked to hold the blood-stained kirch by others who had accompanied him when Malkeet Singh saw him. It is also difficult to believe that somebody would keep a blood-stained weapon with him openly with which he had committed a murder. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that prosecution has not proved that Narinderpal Singh has caused the death of Gobind Singh beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must undoubtedly go to the accused appellant. 6. With the result, the judgment and order of the High Court would liable to be set aside. The appellant, Narinderpal Singh is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant, Narinderpal Singh is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. 7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.