JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No. 33/2010, by which accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pillu was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with the default stipulation to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that upon a written complaint (Ex. P/2) filed by complainant, Lichhma W/o Kashiram, sister of deceased, Smt. Raju, an FIR No. 255/2010 (Ex. P/34) dated 18.05.2010 was registered at about 20.15 PM in Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. In the complaint, the complainant, PW. Lichhma, alleged that her younger sister, namely, Raju (deceased) was married with Sharvan Ram @ Pillu, her brother-in-law as well, five years ago. Her sister was having two daughters from their wedlock and she was living by the side of her house separately. According to complainant, Lichhma, her brother-in-law was working at Mohangarh as a labourer, from where he used to come after 2-3 months to take care of family. According to complainant, her sister was not possession good moral character. Today, his brother-in-law went at Jaitsar Mandi, and around 04.30 complainant PW.3, Lichhma, went to canal for picking up sticks, and upon returning back to her home at 7'O clock, it was come to her knowledge that a quarrel took place in between her sister and brother-in-law, Sarvan Ram, therefore, went to the house of her sister and accused appellant, where the dead body of her sister, Smt. Raju, was lying on the cot. According to complainant, accused appellant killed her sister by inflicting "Lathi" blow upon her head and neck. 3. Upon the aforesaid complaint, FIR (Ex. P/34) was registered at Police Station- Raisinghnagar, and after registration of the FIR, the S.H.O., Police Station Raisinghnagar, went on the spot and prepared site plan and other details vide Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/27A respective, on 19.05.2010. Blood stained threat ("Jevdi") of the cot was taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex. P/28) in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Udaram and Nirmal Kumar. The "Panchnama" of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P/17 on 19.05.2010 at 10.30 AM. P/27 and Ex. P/27A respective, on 19.05.2010. Blood stained threat ("Jevdi") of the cot was taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex. P/28) in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Udaram and Nirmal Kumar. The "Panchnama" of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P/17 on 19.05.2010 at 10.30 AM. Similarly, the details of the dead body upon the place of occurrence was recorded vide Ex. P/18 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Nirmal Kumar and Udaram. The ornaments of the deceased which wore at the time of death, were handed over to the father of the deceased, namely, Kojaram, in the presence of two witnesses, Nirmal Kumar and Udaram. Blood stained mud and simple soil was taken from the house of Khetam vide Ex. P/20. One clip and pieces of bangles were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/22 at 06.00 PM on 19.05.2016 itself. During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested vide Ex. P/30 at 07.30 PM on 19.05.2010. After arrest, upon the information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, one "Lathi" was recovered vide recovery memo dated 21.05.2010 (Ex. P/23) at about 06.45 PM in the presence of two witnesses, Nirmal Kumar and Prithvi Ram. Site plan of the place where the "Lathi" was recovered, was also prepared. 4. The clothes of the deceased viz. "Salwar" and "Jamper" were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/25 on 19.05.2010 in the presence of Kojaram and Nirmal Kumar. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Board at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and postmortem report (Ex. P/7) dated 19.05.2010 was obtained by the Investigating Officer for further investigation. Dead body of deceased was handed to the father of deceased, Kojaram vide Ex. P/26. 5. In the investigation, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, against accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pillu under Section 302 IPC from where the case was committed to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar for trial. 6. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused appellant, but accused appellant denied the charge and prayed for trial. 7. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar for trial. 6. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused appellant, but accused appellant denied the charge and prayed for trial. 7. To prove the prosecution case, 11 witnesses were examined before the trial court including complainant PW.3, Lichhma, and two witnesses of extra judicial confession viz. PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram. After recording prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses, and said that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The learned trial court after recording the entire evidence, heard final arguments and held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment dated 02.12.2010 on the basis of extra judicial confession, recovery of "Lathi", and FSL report and passed sentence against him for life imprisonment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and based upon concocted story of the prosecution because in the complaint filed by PW.3, Lichhma, who later on turned hostile, the presence of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, has not been disclosed, nor any assertion is made that they were present at the place of occurrence when she reached on the spot, therefore, allegation of extra judicial confession to commit murder of wife of accused by him, is totally false. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that although statements of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but not exhibited in the court. The Investigating Officer, Surendra Singh (PW.11) S.H.O. of Police Station-Raisinghnagar, accepted the fact that statements of both these witnesses were recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., and in that statement, it is nowhere disclosed by them that any confession was made by the accused in front of them. Therefore, the story put forth by the prosecution, based upon evidence of extra judicial confession, has no foundation to even stand. 11. Therefore, the story put forth by the prosecution, based upon evidence of extra judicial confession, has no foundation to even stand. 11. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further submitted that the author of FIR PW.3, Lichhma and PW.4 Kashiram (husband of complainant) who were said to be the eye witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, therefore, testimony of these witnesses cannot be made basis for recording conviction against the appellant. The witness PW.11, Prithvi Ram, of recovery of "Lathi", turned hostile and other witness of recovery was not produced before the court to prove the fact of recovery. He further argued that in the recovery memo of "Lathi" (Ex. P/23), it is specifically observed by the Investigating Officer that no blood is appearing upon the "Lathi" whereas in the FSL report, blood of "B" group was found upon the "Lathi", therefore, it is apparent that whole prosecution case is concocted one, more so, based upon false and concocted story. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the author of FIR, PW.3 Lichhma, herself turned hostile and presence of witnesses of extra judicial confession, is doubtful, and prosecution has failed to prove recovery of "Lathi", therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the entire prosecution case is seriously doubtful, so also, there are major contradictions and omission in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is case in which the appellant, husband of deceased, has killed his own wife, Smt. Raju, by inflicting injury upon her head by a "Lathi", recovered during investigation as per his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, even if it is presumed that in the recovery memo of "Lathi", no blood was found on the "Lathi", but upon chemical examination by the FSL, blood of "B" group was found, therefore, such type of expert evidence of FSL, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. 14. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW.1, Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, specifically stated on oath before the Court that they went on the spot, where accused appellant was sitting with "Lathi" and he confessed before them that he had killed his wife by inflicting injury upon her head. In view of above facts and evidence, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no error in the findings given by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellant guilty for offence committed by him. Therefore, the instant criminal appeal file by the appellant may kindly be dismissed. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence led by the prosecution in supports of its case. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in this case to prove the incident, occurred in the house of deceased, in which an allegation is levelled against accused appellant for committing murder of his own wife. 16. The evidence of extra judicial confession is based upon the testimony of PW.1, Hansraj (Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 8 GBD) and PW.2 Chandaram (Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 8 GBD). PW.1 Hansraj, stated before the court that my house is situated near the house of accused, Sharvan Ram @ Pilu. Before 5-7 months I went to the house of Pilu where dead body of deceased Raju was lying on the cot and Pilu was sitting there having "Lathi" in his hand. It is further stated by him that I asked question to Pilu what happened, then, he replied that she is my wife and I had killed her. It is further stated by the said witness that upon such information given by Pilu, I called Sarpanch PW.2 Chandaram, and made a phone call to the police. In the statement further stated that I do not know where injuries were caused upon the body of deceased by accused, Pilu. 17. Similarly, PW.2 Chandaram, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 8 GBD, stated before the court that I am Sarpanch of the village and I received a phone call from Kishna Ram (PW.5) of 1 JKM, who informed me that Pilu has murdered his wife by inflicting "Lathi" blow on her person. Upon receiving said information, I went on the spot and after inspection of the place of occurrence I made a telephone call to the police. Upon receiving said information, I went on the spot and after inspection of the place of occurrence I made a telephone call to the police. Upon said information Deputy Inspector and C.I. came on the spot. As per this witness, there were injuries upon the head of Smt. Raju (deceased), wife of accused appellant. It is nowhere stated by him that information was given to him by the Up-Sarpanch, PW.1 Hansraj. 18. We have also perused the statements of Investigating Officer PW.10- Surendra Singh. According to said witness on 18.05.2010 when he was working as SHO, Police Station- Raisinghnagar, a written report was submitted by PW.3, Lichhma, in which an allegation was made that she (complainant) is the sister of deceased, Smt. Raju, wife of accused appellant. The marriage of Raju was solemnized with accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pilu 5 years back and from their wedlock two children were born. It is also submitted that her brother-in-law was working as labourer at Mohangarh, from where he used to come after 2-3 months to take care of family. His sister was not possessing good moral character. Today, his brother-in-law went Jaitsar Mandi, and around 04.30 she also went to canal for picking up sticks, when returning to her home at 7'O clock, she came to know that some quarrel took place in between her sister and brother-in-law, Sarvan Ram (accused), therefore, went to the house of her sister, where she saw that dead body of her sister was lying on the cot because accused appellant killed her sister by inflicting "Lathi" blow upon her head and neck. 19. It is nowhere stated by witness PW.3, Lichhma, that PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram were present at that time, nor it is stated by her that occurrence took place in her presence. Therefore, it is obvious that presence of PW.1, Hansraj and PW.2, Chandaram, on spot, is doubtful. 20. PW.10, Surendra Singh stated in on oath his statement that during investigation the statement of Bhajanlal, Chandaram and Hansraj were recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We have perused the statements of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 27.05.2010 i.e. after 9 days of the incident. 20. PW.10, Surendra Singh stated in on oath his statement that during investigation the statement of Bhajanlal, Chandaram and Hansraj were recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We have perused the statements of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 27.05.2010 i.e. after 9 days of the incident. In those statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., it is nowhere disclosed by them that accused appellant was present when they reached on the spot, nor it is stated by them that any information was given to the police. It is true that statement of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. were not exhibited in the trial, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Investigating Officer PW.10, Surendra Singh categorically stated in his statements that ^^eSus xokgku Hktuyky] pkankjke] galjkt ds c;ku muds dgs vuqlkj ys[kc) fd;sA^^ 21. But, in the statements of PW.10 Surendra Singh, there is no mention about so-called extra judicial confession. It is also undisputed fact that in the written report submitted by the complainant, Lichhma (PW.3) it is nowhere stated by her that witnesses PW.1 Hansraj, and PW.2 Chandaram, were present when I reached on the spot and submitted written complaint to the police. 22. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that presence of PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram is highly doubtful, therefore, the evidence of extra judicial confession, cannot be accepted so as to hold accused appellant guilty for alleged offences against the accused appellant. The learned trial court thus has committed grave error in relying upon the testimony of these two witnesses resulting in conviction of accused appellant. 23. We have also considered the statements of PW.3, Lichhma, author of the FIR. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 24. PW.4 Kashi Ram, is the husband of the complainant PW.3 Lichhma, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The witness Kishna Ram (PW.5), for whom, it is stated by PW.2, Chandaram that incident was reported to me by Kishna Ram on telephone but this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 25. PW.6, Dharamveer was working on the post of Head Constable at Police Station Gharsana. The witness Kishna Ram (PW.5), for whom, it is stated by PW.2, Chandaram that incident was reported to me by Kishna Ram on telephone but this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 25. PW.6, Dharamveer was working on the post of Head Constable at Police Station Gharsana. He was In-charge of "Malkhana" of P.S.- Gharsana, where five sealed packets were deposited by the S.H.O. The said witness stated in the court that those articles were kept with full protection, and later on sent these articles in accordance with rules to the FSL for chemical examination under Receipt No. 117 dated 26.05.2010 and those packets were given to deposit in the FSL, were properly sealed. 26. PW.7 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Medical Jurist who performed the postmortem of deceased, Raju, and gave postmortem report (Ex. P/7). In the report, it is mentioned that 7 injuries were found on the person of deceased, Raju and Injury No. 7 was sufficient to cause death. 27. PW.8, Robin is the photographer who was called by the S.H.O., Police Station-Raisinghnagar, who took photographs of the place of occurrence and dead body. PW.9, Rajaram, is the Foot Constable of Police Station- Raisinghnagar, who has deposited the articles with the FSL after getting forwarding letter from the office of Superintendent of Police vide Ex. P/6. 28. PW.10, Nirmal, is the witness of recovery of "Lathi" at the instance of accused appellant from his house. The said witness stated that police collected the pieces of bangles of deceased from the place of occurrence. In the cross examination, PW.10 specifically stated that ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd tks ykBh cjken ds le; Jo.k jke mQZ ihyw ekSdk ij ekStwn ugha FkkA ;g ckr jgh gS fd uD’kk ekSdk cuk;k mel le; Jo.kjke mQZ ihyw ekSdk ij ekStwn ugh FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tks yksx ekStwn ugh FkkA ;g ckr lgh gSA fd tks ykBh cjken dh gS] og czgkUkUn ysdj vk;k FkkA^^ 29. PW.11, Prithvi Raj, is also witness of recovery of "Lathi", however, said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 30. Undisputedly, prosecution has come out with a case that PW.1, Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, first went on the spot and saw that accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pilu was in the house having "Lathi" in his hand and they called the police on the spot. 30. Undisputedly, prosecution has come out with a case that PW.1, Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, first went on the spot and saw that accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pilu was in the house having "Lathi" in his hand and they called the police on the spot. If it is so, then why accused appellant was arrested on the next day i.e. on 19.05.2010 at 07.30 PM vide Ex. P/30 and how "Lathi" was recovered on 27.05.2010 on the basis of information given by accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act i.e. after three days of the incident. Thus the version of PW.1 and PW.2 has wrongly been relied upon by the trial court so as to convict the accused appellant. 31. Upon consideration of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because most of the witnesses including author of FIR PW.3, Lichhma, turned hostile. The witnesses PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, cannot be treated to be witnesses of extra judicial confession because their presence on the spot, is doubtful. 32. Upon perusal of recovery memo of "Lathi" (Ex. P/23) it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer that there was no blood upon the "Lathi" recovered as per information of accused. The following facts were recorded in the recovery memo (Ex. P/23): ^^eqdnek vuoku lknhj esa fxjrkj 'kqnk eqyfte ljou jke mQZ ihyw jke S/o fxj/kkjh jke tkfr uk;d mez 25 lky fuoklh 1 J.K.M. us eqrkfcd viuh QnZ bZRryk ds vius fjgk;'kh edku pd 1 J.K.M. ds vkxs igqWp dj ftIlh ls uhps mrj dj vkxs&2 pydj vius fjgk;'kh edku ftldk ckj nf{k.k fn'kk esa izos'k dj mRrjh fn'kk if'pe dks.kk esa iMas cM+s yksgs ds lanqd ds uhps ls ,d ykBh fudky dj is'k dh ftldk eqyk fn;k fd;k x;k rks ykBh ckal dh gS ftldh yECkkbZ 5 fQV 7 1@2 bap gSA ykBh ds 8 iksjh 9 xk< ¼tksbZUV½ gSA ykBh ij [kwu oxSjk fn[kkbZ ugh ns jgk gSA ykBh eqdnek gktk dk otg lcwr gSA^^ 33. The recovery of "Lathi" was made in the presence of two witnesses namely, Nirmal Kumar and Prithvi Ram and out of these two witnesses, Prithvi Raj turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, so also, Nirmal Kumar categorically stated before the court that at the time of recovery, Sarvan Ram @ Pilu was not present at the time of recovery of "Lathi". 34. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that the whole prosecution case is doubtful for the reason that recovery of "Lathi" has not been proved, because in the recovery memo, it has specifically mentioned that no blood was found upon the "Lathi", but in the FSL report, blood of "B" group was found on the "Lathi", which is highly doubtful. There is material contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses, which is relied upon by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC. There is serious doubt with regard to presence of witnesses PW.1 Hansraj and PW.2 Chandaram, therefore, it is obvious that their testimony has wrongly been relied upon by the learned trial court so as to accept the ground of extra judicial confession. The author of the FIR PW.3, Lichhma, herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the whole prosecution is seriously doubtful because it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 35. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pilu is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No. 33/2010, convicting the appellant for offence u/s. 302 of IPC is hereby quashed. The accused appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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.