JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. State has preferred instant appeal against acquittal of respondents-accused vide judgment dated 12.07.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District Nanan H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 57-ST/7 of 2011 in case FIR No. 104/2011 dated 07.05.2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. for setting aside the impugned judgment and to convict respondents-accused. 2. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and counsel for respondents-accused and have also perused record of the case. 3. Prosecution case is that on 07.05.2011 at about 1.15 PM in Police Post Kala Amb an information was received from Poonam Nursing Home, Kala Amb that one boy named ‘Sunil Kumar’ was brought for treatment in case of fight. This information was recorded as report No. 8 of Daily Diary dated 07.05.2011. In pursuance to said report HC Ram Gopal went to Poonam Nursing Home and recorded statement of respondent No. 4 Sunil Kumar that Manu son of Sleem, Vishal and one another boy had assaulted him and his brother Anil on 07.05.2011 at about 12.30 PM in front of Gogia Sweet Shop Trilokpur road and one boy gave danda blow on his head and another boy hit him with stone and thereafter assailants fled from spot on Motor Cycle towards Trilokpur. On return HC Ram Gopal recorded this information in Daily Diary Report No. 12. 4. On that day i.e. 07.05.2011 ASI Bihari Lal was on patrolling duty. He was informed by Head Constable Rajeev Kumar on his mobile that in incident of fighting two persons were brought for treatment in Sneh Hospital Kala Amb and they were serious. On receiving this information, ASI Bihari Lal went to Sneh Hospital and recorded statement of PW-1 Manu Khan Ex. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.PC. In this statement PW-1 stated that respondents assaulted him and Banti @ Pankaj Sharma at about 4.30 PM near gate No. 2 of Ruchira Factory and assailants were armed with sticks, dandas and knives who beat them bitterly. Anil stabbed on leg of Banti @ Pankaj Sharma, Pardeep Kumar gave blow of rod on his head whereupon Banti @ Pankaj Sharma fell down. Thereafter assailants fled away in white colour car and on 2-3 Motor Cycles. Anil stabbed on leg of Banti @ Pankaj Sharma, Pardeep Kumar gave blow of rod on his head whereupon Banti @ Pankaj Sharma fell down. Thereafter assailants fled away in white colour car and on 2-3 Motor Cycles. He was brought to Hospital by his uncle in Bolero Jeep and Banti @ Pankaj Sharma was also brought to Hospital by some one else. Banti @ Pankaj Sharma was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He also gave details of series of incidents of quarrelling with respondents taking place since morning. 5. After recording statement Ex. PW-1/A, it was sent to Police Station as ‘Rukka’ and FIR Ex. PW-23/A was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 394 and 307 of IPC. Bunti @ Pankaj Sharma was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he was admitted at 9.15 PM but he succumbed to injuries at 3.15 AM on 08.05.2011 whereupon case was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in court and accused were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses. Statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. No defence evidence was led. 7. PW-1 Manu Khan was injured and was the complainant in the present case. At the time of deposition in Court in his examination-in-chief, he stated about minor altercations taken place between him and respondents. However he desisted to support prosecution case by disowning contents of FIR Ex. PW-23/A. He was declared hostile witness on the request of learned Public Prosecutor. However nothing material in favour of prosecution could be elucidated during his cross-examination. He admitted his signatures on statement Ex. PW-1/A but stated that at the time of signing, he was in the Hospital and there were so many persons present alongwith police and the statement was already written by police on which he was made to sign. He further stated that his signatures on the said statement were taken after two days of the incident. He admitted injuries caused to him and Banti @ Pankaj near gate of Ruchira Factory. However he stated that assailants were muffled and their faces were not visible and therefore he could not identify them. 8. He further stated that his signatures on the said statement were taken after two days of the incident. He admitted injuries caused to him and Banti @ Pankaj near gate of Ruchira Factory. However he stated that assailants were muffled and their faces were not visible and therefore he could not identify them. 8. PW-2 Jahur Hussan, PW-3 Gurmeet Singh and PW-4 Goverdhan Singh were examined as witnesses to the incident but they did not lend any support to prosecution case. For resiling their statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.PC, they were declared hostile on the request of learned Public Prosecutor. PW-2 stated that he saw one injured person lying on the ground who was lifted by people and was taken to hospital. He also admitted visit of police on the spot and lifting blood stained earth and seizure of Motor Cycle but he denied to seen assailants. 9. PW-3 stated that he saw Shillu indulged in scuffle with two persons in front of his shop. He stated that respondent No. 4 Shillu was lying injured who was taken to hospital for treatment at about 12.30 PM but he denied having knowledge of scuffle taken place in the evening and about death of Banti @ Pankaj Sharma due to injures sustained in that scuffle. 10. PW-4 stated that police came to his shop and recorded his name and address but he did not know anything about the incident. 11. PW-11 Gian Chand deposed that when he reached near Ruchira Paper Mills at Trilokpur Kala Amb road, lot of people were gathered there and Manu Khan was lying injured on the road. He took Manu Khan from Sneh Hospital Kala Amb. In the meanwhile some other people also brought other injured in Sneh Hospital to whom people were calling Banti @ Pankaj Sharma. Banti @ Pankaj Sharma was referred to PGI Chandigarh and Manu Khan remained admitted in Sneh Hospital. 12. PW-14 also turned hostile and resiled from his statement recorded by police. He stated that on 07.05.2011 at about 12.00 (noon) when he reached near Gogia Sweet Shop, he noticed respondent No. 4 Shillu @ Sunil Kumar lying on the road on opposite side of Gogia Sweet Shop. He further stated that he did not witness the fight. He was also subjected to cross- examination by learned Public Prosecutor but nothing in favour of prosecution could be extracted. He further stated that he did not witness the fight. He was also subjected to cross- examination by learned Public Prosecutor but nothing in favour of prosecution could be extracted. 13. As per prosecution case, Pardeep Kumar and Deepak Pandey were also amongst the respondents-assailants. They were juvenile and were subjected to separate trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. PW-6 Surmukh Singh is uncle and PW-7 is father of Juvenile Pardeep Kumar. They were examined to prove production of iron rod by Juvenile Pardeep Kumar. Both of them turned hostile and stated that Pardeep Kumar was apprehended by police. Police called and advised them to produce iron rod stating that it was necessary in order to enlarge Pardeep Kumar on bail. Despite cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor nothing material could be brought on record in favour of prosecution. 14. PW-8 Raj Kumar Mittal and PW-9 Dev Raj were examined to prove recovery of knife and danda at the instance of respondent Anil Kumar. PW-8 also turned hostile. He stated that ASI told him that knife and danda were recovered at the instance of Anil Kumar and ASI asked him to sign document Ex. PW-8/A but contents of said document were not read over to him before his signature. PW-9 Dev Raj supported prosecution case but during cross-examination, he admitted that he was posted as Home Guard in Police Post Kala Amb. He was also witness in case State versus Pardeep Kumar. His statement Ex. DA was recorded in that case before Juvenile Justice Board on 28.10.2011. He was confronted with that statement Ex. DA. There was difference of version in statement EX. DA and deposition made in court in present case. He explained that on 28.10.2011, before making statement in Juvenile Justice Board he was not read over statement under Section 161 Cr.PC whereas before deposing in present case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was read over to him by ASI outside the Court. Therefore this witness cannot be relied upon to prove recovery of danda and knife at the instance of Anil Kumar. 15. PW-5 HHC Gobind Singh was witness to seizer of Vehicle No. HR-02L-0041 vide Memo Ex. PW-5/A. PW-12 Daya Nand was witness to taking into possession of RC of Motor Cycle No. HR-54-9454 vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. PW-10 is Patwari who issued Tatima and Jamabandi of place of occurrence. 15. PW-5 HHC Gobind Singh was witness to seizer of Vehicle No. HR-02L-0041 vide Memo Ex. PW-5/A. PW-12 Daya Nand was witness to taking into possession of RC of Motor Cycle No. HR-54-9454 vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. PW-10 is Patwari who issued Tatima and Jamabandi of place of occurrence. From statements of these witnesses nothing incriminatory against respondents was brought on record. 16. PW-13 Dr. Ajay Goel medically examined respondent Sunil Kumar and PW-16 Dr. M.L. Gupta medically examined PW-1 Manu Khan and deceased Banti @ Pankaj Sharma. PW-15 Dr. Himanshu admitted Banti in PGI Chandigarh and proved his treatment and death in PGI Chandigarh. 17. PW-17 to PW-25, PW-27 and PW-28 were police officials who proved their role performed during investigation. 18. PW-26 Naresh Kumar Sharma, father of deceased Banti @ Pankaj Sharma was only witness who deposed against respondents by naming them in his statement as assailants claiming that their names were disclosed by his son in Sneh Hospital Kala Amb on the date of incident and which were also affirmed by PW-1 on the same day. As per him he had requested police to record statement of his son but the police told him that they had heard his statement. He further stated that he had requested the police to record his statement. On 20th August, 2011, Police came to his house and recorded his statement and also of his wife. During cross- examination he stated that statements of his brothers Nand Lal and Lalit were recorded by police. He further stated that after the incident he got himself transferred to Surla and he joined his duties after 15 days of death of his son but he did not visit police post to ascertain progress of the case but his uncle and brother were attending investigation and the police came to his house on 20th August, 2011 and he could not meet PW-28 Bihari Lal prior to 20.08.2011 as he was in shock due to murder of his son and he came to know from his brother Lalit that statement of Banti @ Pankaj Sharma was not recorded by police when he was alive, but he did not do anything after knowing the said fact. However in later part of his statement he admitted that on 14th June, 2011 he and his wife were party to a delegation of Gram Panchayat alongwith Pradhan and others who met the Superintendent of Police at Nahan and submitted representation Ex. D-2 which was signed by him and his wife alongwith others. He admitted that in the said representation Ex. D-2 it was not recorded that his son Banti @ Panjaj Sharma made a disclosure in Sneh Hospital to him naming assailants. He also admitted that he did not inform the Superintendent of Police that Banti @ Pankaj Sharma had made a statement to him in Sneh Hospital. He admitted that after representation Ex. D-2, PW-28 ASI Bihari Lal met him and inquired about his representation but he did not disclose this fact to said Investigation Officer at that time as stated by him in examination-in-chief regarding disclosure by his son Banti @ Pankaj Sharma. 19. It emerged from admissions of PW-26 during his cross-examination that after more than three months of the incident for the first time his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded on 20.08.2011 in which he claimed disclosure by his son about the names of assailants to him on 07.05.2011. After 07.05.2011 his brothers and uncle were monitoring investigation and also representation to the Superintendent of Police was submitted by him with delegation of Gram Panchayat but prior to 20th August, 2011 he never disclosed that deceased Banti @ Pankaj Sharma had informed him about assailants and PW-1 had also affirmed those names on that day. 20. PW-26 appeared to be designed and introduced in order to rope respondent somehow. He kept mum for three months despite the fact that his only son was murdered. There was no threat to him from any quarter. But suddenly after 3 months he came with plea that his son had disclosed names of assailants. In these circumstances claim of PW-26 Naresh Kumar Sharma was shrouded by suspicion and definitely was a result of afterthought. Therefore his statement is not trustworthy and confidence inspiring and thus cannot be made the basis to convict the respondents. 21. But suddenly after 3 months he came with plea that his son had disclosed names of assailants. In these circumstances claim of PW-26 Naresh Kumar Sharma was shrouded by suspicion and definitely was a result of afterthought. Therefore his statement is not trustworthy and confidence inspiring and thus cannot be made the basis to convict the respondents. 21. It is evident from aforesaid discussion that the evidence so adduced by the prosecution cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, credible and trustworthy to prove guilt of the respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt for committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. It cannot be said that learned trial court has not appreciated evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. The respondents-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. No case for interference is made out. 23. The present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith.