JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Instant appeal, assailing judgment dated 31.3.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 4-N/7 of 2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, vide which respondents were acquitted in case FIR No. 241/2007 dated 14.7.2007 under Sections 380, 302 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., has been filed by complainant Kalyan Singh. 2. We have heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents and have also gone through the material placed on record. 3. According to complainant PW-12 Kalyan Singh, on 14.7.2007 at about 3.30 a.m. his son Pritam Singh came out from his house for urinating and noticed some trespasser in motor shed of Tube well of his uncle Amrit Singh. He came inside and wake up his father (complainant) informing that someone was taking away motor from tube well of uncle. Complainant armed with iron rod and his son Pritam Singh with drat rushed to catch trespasser but that person ran away from the spot. Complainant and his son chased that person. Complainant was following his son. Trespasser stuck with barbed wire fencing and was caught by his son. Scuffle took place and trespasser skipped but in this process his son had inflicted injury on his arm with drat. His son again caught trespasser in field of Mela Ram but that person ran away after stabbing his son. Two other persons were also accompanying trespasser. Complainant brought his injured son to home. Police was informed. His injured son succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. 4. On receiving information, PW-24 Harjeet Singh, Incharge Police Post, Singhpura recorded Rapat No. l8 Ex.PW-24/L and reached on the spot and recorded statement of complainant PW-12 Kalyan Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of this statement FIR Ex.PW23/A was registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib and investigation was carried on. 5. During investigation, police had arrested respondent No. 2 Mam Raj as assailant. However, complainant Kalyan Singh had refused to accept the said conclusion of investigating Officer and had represented to various authorities, stating that it was respondent Raghubir Singh and others who were trespasser and Raghubir Singh had stabbed his son deceased Pritam Singh. After two days of incident i.e. on 16.07.2007, on the basis of corresponding injuries on his body, Raghubir Singh was also identified by complainant. After two days of incident i.e. on 16.07.2007, on the basis of corresponding injuries on his body, Raghubir Singh was also identified by complainant. Superintendent of Police, Nahan had constituted an Investigating Team comprising of PW-34 Dy. Superintendent of Police Narveer Singh, PW-33 Inspector Gurdeep Singh SHO, Police Station Paonta Sahib and PW-24 ASI Harjeet Singh In-charge Police Post, Singhpura. However, rejecting plea of complainant, challan was presented in Court against respondent No. 2 Mam Raj. 6. During trial complainant had appeared as PW-12 on 18.9.2012 and in his statement he had alleged that investigation was not carried on in a fair and proper manner and it was not Mam Raj but Raghubir Singh who was real culprit in present case, but despite having sufficient evidence against Raghubir Singh, he had been let free by police. Complainant (PW-12) had also filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading respondent Raghubir Singh as an accused. Trial Court had allowed that application vide order dated 3.10.2012 and Raghubir Singh was directed to be impleaded as an accused. On consistent persuasion of complainant, further investigation was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, PW-50 Bhagat Singh. On the basis of said investigation supplementary challan was also filed by police against respondent Raghubir Singh under Section 380, 302 IPC. Accordingly, respondent Raghubir Singh was also charge-sheeted under Section 380 and 302 IPC alongwith Mam Raj. 7. Witnesses examined prior to impleading Raghubir Singh as accused were recalled for reexamination by Public Prosecutor and cross-examination on behalf of respondents. Thereafter remaining witnesses as well as witnesses cited in supplementary challan were examined and statements of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Respondent Raghubir Singh also examined three defence witnesses. On conclusion of trial, respondents were acquitted by trial Court. 8. Initially, as per challan presented in the Court, respondent Mam Raj was assailant and Investigating Officer had placed his disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on record alleging that the said statement was followed by recovery of knife i.e. weapon of offence vide recovery memos Ex.PW-4/A. Production of his clothes by Mam Raj, stated to be worn by him at the time of committing offence, vide memo Ex.PW-4/A was also relied upon by police against him. 9. On the day of occurrence a bicycle alongwith Umbrella, empty cement bags and sleepers was also found near place of incident. 9. On the day of occurrence a bicycle alongwith Umbrella, empty cement bags and sleepers was also found near place of incident. It was prosecution case that Mam Raj had stolen bicycle from the house of Sahdev a brother of Raghubir Singh and used the said bicycle for committing offence. There was no other evidence against Mam Raj even PW-12 complainant had not implicated respondent Mam Raj in his statement. He only stated that Mam Raj might have been party in committing offence but it was Raghubir Singh who was caught on the spot, however, had succeeded in fleeing from the spot but with injuries on his body and after stabbing his son deceased Pritam Singh. 10. So far as recovery of knife at the instance of respondent Mam Raj is concerned, the same had not been proved on record. PW-4 Prem Singh and PW-5 Narender Kumar are the witnesses in whose presence, respondent Mam Raj was stated to have produced knife from Almirah kept in his house. Both of them had not supported prosecution case and they after declaring hostile were subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor but nothing incriminatory material implicating Mam Raj could be elucidated from statements of these witnesses. Both of them stated that knife was not recovered in their presence and police had shown them a knife telling that the same was recovered from the house of respondent Mam Raj but Mam Raj was sitting quiet. Therefore, recovery of knife as claimed by prosecution is under suspicion. 11. Disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was reduced into writing vide memo Ex.PW-7/A. PW-6 Ram Pal was only independent witness to this disclosure statement whereas other two witnesses PW-7 constable Navinder Singh and PW-13 HC Dalip Singh were police officials. However, in his deposition in the Court, PW-6 Ram Pal was completely silent about disclosure statement. Though, PW-7 constable Navinder Singh and PW-13 HC Dalip Singh had deposed that in their presence alongwith Ram Pal, respondent Mam Raj had made disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/A. Silence of PW-6 on this issue cast doubt on veracity on these witnesses. Moreover, recovery on the basis of this statement was not proved beyond suspicion. Therefore, this statement cannot be relied upon against respondent Mam Raj. 12. Moreover, recovery on the basis of this statement was not proved beyond suspicion. Therefore, this statement cannot be relied upon against respondent Mam Raj. 12. It is the case of prosecution that respondent Mam Raj had also produced clothes worn by him in presence of PW-1 Attar Singh and PW-2 Gulsher Ahmed but production of clothes by respondent Mam Raj in presence of these witnesses was not admitted by them in their deposition in the Court. Both of them stated that police had shown them clothes and obtained their signatures on Ex.PW-1/A. 13. Clothes and knife were sent for chemical examination to SFSL, Junga but blood was not found on these articles as evident from Chemical Analysis Report Ex.PW-34/A to Ex.PW34-D. 14. It is case of prosecution that PW-8 Ram Kumar, a relative of Sahdev was owner of bicycle and Mam Raj had stolen bicycle from the house of Sahdev and Sahdev was brother of respondent Raghubir Singh. Prosecution has relied upon memo of identification of spot from where bicycle was stolen by respondent Mam Raj. This memo was witnessed by PW-1 Attar Singh and PW-3 Smt. Swarnoo Devi wife of Sahdev. PW-1 Attar Singh had not lent support to prosecution story and denied even visiting to house of Sehdev with police and respondent Mam Raj. Deposition of PW-3 Swarnoo Devi is also not credible as she stated that no body was accompanying the police at the time of visit to their house. In latter part, she stated that Pardhan Attar Singh was present with the police. Thereafter she stated that respondent Mam Raj had identified the spot who was accompanying the police. Her statement is not trustworthy. Moreover, she was relative (Bhabhi) of another respondent Raghubir Singh who was being accused by complainant and others as real assailant. 15. Story of theft of bicycle is also not above the board as no complaint about theft of bicycle was made to police despite claim of PW-8 Ram Kumar that he had purchased bicycle for Rs.2,000/- in the month of July, 2007. 16. PW-12 Kalyan Singh in his deposition in the Court had specifically stated that it was Raghubir Singh who was assailant and not Mam Raj and Mam Raj may be accomplice with Raghubir Singh. 16. PW-12 Kalyan Singh in his deposition in the Court had specifically stated that it was Raghubir Singh who was assailant and not Mam Raj and Mam Raj may be accomplice with Raghubir Singh. Numerous complaints had been placed on record, which were submitted by PW-12 to various authorities with regard to investigation carried out by police and also with regard to persons who were being suspected to have committed the offence. None of these applications, PW-12 Kalyan Singh found mention name of Mam Raj since the very first day. PW-12 Kalyan Singh had named respondent Raghubir Singh as main assailant and two other persons as accomplice. In view of above evidence on record, respondent Mam Raj was rightly acquitted by learned trial Court. 17. So far as guilt of respondent Raghubir Singh was concerned, PW-12 Kalyan Singh had stated that during scuffle his son deceased Pritam Singh had given drat blow on arm of assailant and the assailant had also received injuries with barbed wire fencing when he was trying to flee from the spot and therefore, assailant was having injuries on his forehead and arm. Respondent Raghubir Singh was noticed with injuries on his forehead and left arm and it was informed to the police and thereafter Raghubir Singh was interrogated by the police. Raghubir Singh had explained that he received injuries on his arm with a Farata fan. Farata fan was also taken in possession by police. Raghubir Singh was subjected to medical examination and as per his MLC Ex.PW-38/B issued on 21.7.2007, there was an infected wound of 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left lateral side of the wrist. This injury was found 5 to 10 days old. 18. PW-12 Kalyan Singh had also produced drat to the police during investigation. Drat, Farata fan, and MLC of Raghubir Singh were sent to Department of Forensic Medicine, IGMC, Shimla for opinion. After examining material placed before team of doctors, they opined that injury in question could not have been sustained by running fan blade accidentally as the expected outcome in that case would have been multiple injuries and much deeper injuries and also the alleged part hit by the fan is wrist, which was at approximately 20 cms behind the last point of the hand. The accidental injury by a running fan was expected to be in more distal parts. The accidental injury by a running fan was expected to be in more distal parts. The injury was also found of the same duration as old was alleged offence and possibility of such injury being inflicted by a drat could not be ruled out. Report of team of Forensic Medicine, IGMC, Shimla was placed on record as Ex.PW-49/B. PW-49 Dr. Piyush Kapila also stated that injury present on the left wrist of Raghubir Singh was possible with drat Ex.P-22. 19. On the day of incident, fields were wet and foot prints of assailants were also found in the fields. The investigating Officer had picked up one clear left foot print from the field. During investigation foot print impressions, of suspected persons namely Ramesh S/o Mam Raj, Sher Khan S/o Gulsher Ahmad, Raghubir Singh S/o Raju Ram, Mam Raj S/o Nathu Ram, Naresh Kumar S/o Basant Ram, Madan Lal S/o Girdhari Lal, Jai Singh S/o Surat Singh and Ifran S/o Khalil Ahmad were taken and sent to State Forensic Science, Laboratory, Junga. As per report of SFSL Ex. PW-34/B, foot print impressions of unknown person was of the left foot whereas Investigating Team had sent right foot impressions of suspected persons. However, on the basis of physical features, it was found that there was potential of matching of left foot impression of Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh with that of unknown person. Therefore, left foot impression of these two persons was requested to be sent again for laboratory examination. 20. PW-34 Dy. S.P. Narveer Singh stated that he had taken sample of foot mold of Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh on 20.10.2007 but he had prepared challan on 1.11.2007 and as such he was not able to say anything about the report of SFSL of the said foot print which was taken by him. 21. As per challan presented by PW-34 Dy. S.P. Narveer Singh, Mam Raj was real culprit whereas as per supplementary challan presented by PW-50 Bhagat Singh, Addl. S.P. Raghubir Singh was main culprit and Mam Raj might have been as accomplice. 22. During further investigation PW-50 had also taken foot prints of respondent Raghubir Singh. PW-39 HC Kalyan Singh and HHC Sandeep Kumar witnessed taking of foot print impressions of Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh on 14.7.2013 and signed memos Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW-39/B in this regard which were also signed by Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh. 22. During further investigation PW-50 had also taken foot prints of respondent Raghubir Singh. PW-39 HC Kalyan Singh and HHC Sandeep Kumar witnessed taking of foot print impressions of Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh on 14.7.2013 and signed memos Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW-39/B in this regard which were also signed by Raghubir Singh and Jai Singh. This fact was not disputed by respondents. As per PW-50 Bhagat Singh, these foot prints were sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga. But no report from SFSL qua those foot prints was placed on record. 23. On first day, complainant Kalyan Singh had not identified the assailant due to darkness but on the basis of injury he had suspected that Raghubir Singh might be assailant. Explanation in defence by Raghubir Singh with respect to this injury was found false as his plea that this injury was suffered by him one day before the incident with Farata fan was negated by medical experts. 24. The bicycle recovered on spot on the day of incident was also found to be owned by PW-8 Ram Kumar who was relative of Sahdev and Sahdev is a real brother of Raghubir Singh. It has come in evidence that PW-9 Jagdish Chand, father of PW-8 Ram Kumar went to village Mehruwala to meet his brother-in-law Sahdev (brother of Raghubir Singh) and parked bicycle in question in veranda of Sahdev. On 14.7.2007, in the morning bicycle was not found on that place. Bicycle (Ex.P-6) found on the spot was identified by PW-8 Ram Kumar as his own bicycle. House of Raghubir Singh was adjoining to house of Sahdev. The story of prosecution of stealing bicycle by respondent Mam Raj was found doubtful. 25. Belonging of bicycle to relative of respondent Raghubir Singh which was parked in veranda of his brother in the night of 13.7.2007 and injuries on his left wrist and also falsehood of his explanation with respect to cause of injury created strong suspicion towards in culpability of Raghubir Singh indicating that he might have been assailant but result of comparison by State FSL of left foot print impression of Raghubir Singh with foot print impression lifted from spot was withheld by prosecution which was an important pieces of evidence to complete the chain or for proving innocence of Raghubir Singh. 26. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. 26. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. Withholding of a material piece of evidence is fatal for case of the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that it was Raghubir Singh who had assaulted deceased Pritam Singh on fateful day. 27. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that prosecution evidence cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 28. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and to dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court. 29. From perusal and scrutiny of evidence, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of the accused persons has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. 30. It is shocking of state of affairs that the investigation was carried out by officer of rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Addl. Superintendent of Police and both of them have failed to place result of examination of comparison of foot prints by SFSL on record, which was a material piece of evidence for deciding the fate of prosecution case. Sending right foot print impressions of suspects to compare with left foot print of assailant is also a serious lapse particularly, when investigating team was headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police and thus deserves to be addressed 31. It has also come on record that complainant was agitating since beginning that it was not Mam Raj but Raghubir Singh who was assailant but officer investigating the case in the beginning as well as investigating team constituted by Superintendent of Police later on, had adamantly ignored plea of complainant as well as evidence available against the persons being named by the complainant. Later on, Addl. Superintendent of Police in his further investigation had found that it was not respondent Mam Raj but respondent Raghubir Singh who was main assailant. Evidence collected and relied upon by Addl. Superintendent of Police appeared to be ignored in order to save respondent Raghubir Singh from facing trial which amounts dereliction of duty. 32. Later on, Addl. Superintendent of Police in his further investigation had found that it was not respondent Mam Raj but respondent Raghubir Singh who was main assailant. Evidence collected and relied upon by Addl. Superintendent of Police appeared to be ignored in order to save respondent Raghubir Singh from facing trial which amounts dereliction of duty. 32. Director General of Police is directed to seek explanation from the members of the Investigating Team, whether in service or retired, and to take appropriate action for lapse on their part. Compliance affidavit, be filed by Director General of Police, within two months from the date of this judgment. 33. After considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. Consequently, present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused persons are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.