JUDGMENT : G.K. Vyas, J. This instant criminal jail appeal has been filed by the appellants-convict Sardara and Pyara from the Central Jail, Unaipur in which both the appellants are challenging the judgment dated 6.10.2006 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur passed in Sessions Case No. 43/2006 whereby both the accused appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and passed the following sentence: Under Section 302/34 I.P.C.   Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI Under Section 201 I.P.C. Five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI 2. As per brief facts of the case, the PW-1 Dita Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Ogana, District Udaipur in which it is stated that today I went village Kaligardh to the house of Mota from where when I was going along with Mota to the village Oda, on the way in the empty house of one Nana they saw one green sadi (Odhna), therefore to inquire who is sleeping inside the house, they found that dead body of one lady was lying there. The complainant PW-1 Dita Ram left Mota at the place of occurrence and went to the village Oda, from where gave a telephonic call to the Dy. Superintendent of Police from STD and reported the incident verbally upon that informed police came on spot. When Dita Ram came back on spot Mota Ram informed him that it is the body of Vardi Bai W/o Rama Gameti, resident of village Vilawas. The above incident was reported by the witness PW-1 Dita Ram in writing vide Ex.P-1 to the SFIO, Police Station Ogana upon which F.I.R. No. 5/2006 dated 10.1.2006 was registered under Sections 302, 201 and "34-I.P.C. against unknown person. The police took the dead body of Vardi Bai in possession vide Ex.P-2 and prepared the site plan Ex.P-4. The blood lying upon spot was also taken in a bag along with soil from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-5 and sealed on spot. The police took the dead body of Vardi Bai in possession vide Ex.P-2 and prepared the site plan Ex.P-4. The blood lying upon spot was also taken in a bag along with soil from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-5 and sealed on spot. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against unknown person but during investigation, the accused appellants were arrested on the basis of statement of witness Ramesh, Bheema and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Udaipur but later on, transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur for trial. 3. The learned Trial Court after hearing, arguments of both the parties framed charge against appellant under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and granted an opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence. In support of prosecution case, statements of 17 witnesses were recorded including eyewitness PW-11 Ramesh. After recording evidence of prosecution, the statements of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they completely denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that they have been falsely implecated in this case. No recovery has been made from them. In defence, in spite of granting an opportunity to lead evidence, no defence was produced by the appellants. 4. The learned Trial Court after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, finally decided the case vide impugned judgment dated 6.10.2006 whereby convicted the accused appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and passed the sentence aforesaid. In this Jail appeal the appellants are challenging the validity of the judgment impugned. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that both the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case because it is a case of no evidence. More so, both the accused appellants were arrested on the basis of evidence of planted eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh, which is evident from the fact that statement (Ex.D-2) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh, Bheema and Udaki, father and mother of the eye-witness Ramesh were recorded on 5.2.2006 in which they said that information was given by Ramesh that deceased Vardi has been killed by Sardara and Pyara. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Bheema was also recorded on 8.2.2006 and PW-11 Ramesh were recorded on 5.2.2006 in which specific allegations were levelled against accused appellants but there is no explanation on record why they keep mum for more than 25 days from the date of incident. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants these witnesses were leter on planted to implicate the accused appellants with the crime without any evidence. It is vehemently argued that the author of F.I.R. PW-1 Dita Ram turned hostile. The husband of the deceased Vardi PW-4 Rama, PW-8 Udaki, PW-9 Bheema father and mother of the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh turned hostile to whom as per eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh reported the incident just next date of occurrence, but the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants while relying upon the statement of only one eye witness Ramesh PW-11 whose testimony is not even corroborated by his father Bheema and mother Udaki for whom it is specifically stated by the witness Ramesh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The above ground was raised before the learned Trial Court, but it has been decided in very casual manner in para No. 27 of the judgment whereby accused appellants held guilty for offence of murder, therefore, the finding based upon the testimony of planted witness PW-11 Ramesh in the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 6. With regard to question of recovery of weapon two axes and cloths it is submitted that it is beyond imagination that blood can remain upon the axe after more than one month from the date of incident. The whole prosecution story is fabricated story based upon false testimony of the witness, which is not corroborated by any other evidence. It is also argued that learned Trial Court was under obligation to consider the ground of delay of more than 25 days in recording statements of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh for which there is no explanation on record. So also, delay in recovering of weapon after on month but without considering ground of delay held appellants guilty, the finding given by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed. 7. So also, delay in recovering of weapon after on month but without considering ground of delay held appellants guilty, the finding given by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed. 7. While inviting attention to the FSL report and recovery of weapon, it is submitted that as per prosecution case vide Ex.P-34 an information vyas given by the accused appellant Sardara under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that axe which is alleged to be used for inflicting injury to the deceased Vardi is lying in his house which can be recovered. Similarly, the accused appellant Pyara gave information Ex.P-35 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 9.2.2006 that weapon axe which is used by him for inflicting injury to the deceased is lying in my house and upon aforesaid information, the recovery of axe was made vide Ex.P-15 from the house of Pyara and another axe was recovered from the house of Pyara vide Ex.P-18 in front of two witnesses Karan Singh and Ganesh Lal from their house. Out of these 2 witnesses, only one witness PW-12 Karan Singh has been produced in the Court to prove the recovery of axe, but upon perusal of his statement it will reveal that he is not reliable witness because it is nowhere stated by him that blood was found upon two axes recovered at the instance of accused appellants, in spite of that the learned Trial Court accepted the testimony of this witness so as to connect accused appellants with the crime, therefore, the finding with regard to recovery of weapon and FSL to connect the accused appellants with the crime is totally false and far from the truth. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in this case, the learned Trial Court has completely failed to discharge its duties to adjudicate the matter in proper manner because all the grounds taken by the appellants with regard to delay of recording statements of eye-witness and recovery of weapon, so also, the fact that witnesses Bheema and Udaki, father and mother of Ramesh and author of F.I.R. PW-1 Dita Ram and husband of deceased Rama turned hostile and did not support the persecution case, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence of motive on record which is essential ingredient to hold the accused guilty for offence of murder, therefore, the finding given by the learned Trial Court to hold accused appellants guilty in the judgment deserves to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is a case in which the testimony of the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh cannot be ignored. More So, the said witness is reliable witness because he has categorically stated before the Court that incident was occurred in front of him and due to fear he has not disclosed the incident to anyone for near about 25 days. As per the learned Public Prosecutor the allegation of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh is supported by other evidence, which is FSL report and recovery of axe at the instance of accused appellants upon which blood was found. The learned Trial Court considered the entire evidence carefully and held the accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that thorough investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer Sh. Harsh Aada PW-15 and the said witness completely supported the investigation and proved the prosecution story. The statement of Investigating Officer PW-15 Harsh Aada is supported by other witness PW-16 Ramesh who was working on the post of Head Constable who was assisting the Investigating Officer in whole of the investigation, therefore, it is a case in which the learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh to hold accused appellants guilty and statement of PW-12 Karan Singh for recovery of axe. Therefore, there is no force in this jail appeal filed by the accused appellants because they murdered innocent lady by inflicting injuries upon her body by sharp edged weapon axe which is recovered in investigation as per the information given by the accused appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which is legally proved by the prosecution by leading trustworthy evidence therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 12. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor we have minutely scanned the entire evidence in the light of arguments advanced by both the parties. 12. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor we have minutely scanned the entire evidence in the light of arguments advanced by both the parties. Upon perusal of judgment impugned, it appears that the learned Trial Court adjucicated the whole case in para No. 27 of the judgment while relying upon the statement of so called eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh, who has stated in his statement that on the date of incident in front of him Sardara and Pyara gave be ratings to the deceased Vardi by the weapon axe, it is true that PW-11 Ramesh has been produced by the prosecution as eyewitness in this case, but his testimony is not supported by any other evidence. 13. The witness PW-1 Dita Ram author of the F.I.R. turned hostile and no allegation is levelled by him against the accused appellants. More so, the said witness did not support the prosecution case. The witness PW-2 Mota was present along with Dita Ram when first time they saw dead body of deceased in the empty house. The witness PW-2 Mota stated in his cross-examination that nothing was said to him by the witness Bheema and Ramesh with regard to the incident. PW-3 Shiv Lal is the witness before whom soil was taken in possession by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-1, so also, Panchanama (Ex.P-2) was prepared, but this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW-4 Rama is the husband of the deceased Vardi. The said witness turned hostile and stated in his statement that witness Bheema has killed his wife. 14. PW-15 Uda stated before the Court that police called him in the hospital from where he took the cloths of his daughter who is Vardi and put his signatures upon Panchanama (Ex.P-2 and PW-6). Nothing has been said by him against the accused appellants. PW-6 Smt. Champa stated before the Court that my sister Kamla gave Rs.100/- to deceased Vardi to Purchase cock (Murga) and my mother-in-law Vardi left the house but did not come back. No allegations were levelled by her against accused appellants. PW-7 Balki stated before the Court that I was knowing deceased Vardi and on the date of occurrence when I was in my house, called Vardi, but she did not come. Nothing has been said by this witness against accused appellants. 15. No allegations were levelled by her against accused appellants. PW-7 Balki stated before the Court that I was knowing deceased Vardi and on the date of occurrence when I was in my house, called Vardi, but she did not come. Nothing has been said by this witness against accused appellants. 15. The witness PW-8 Udaki, mother of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. More so, in the cross-examination it is stated by her that " ;g xyr gS fd esjs dks jes'k us ;g crk;k gks fd ojnh ds lkFk ljnkjk o I;kjk us ekjihV dh gks ,oa mls ukuh;k ds ?kj esa Mky fn;k gksA eSa ljnkjk o I;kjk us ekjihV dh gks ,oa mls ukuh;k ds ?kj esa Mky fn;k gksA eSa ljnkjk o I;kjk dks ugha tkurh gwWa] ;g xyr gS fd eqyfteku ls feydj >wB cksy jgh gwWaA " 16. The said witness is not corroborating any fact disclosed by the eyewitness PW-11 Ramesh that he has informed his mother and father about the incident. 17. PW-9 Bheema is the father of PW-11 Ramesh. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and allegation of eye-witness, so also, in the cross-examination it is stated by him that the eye-witness Ramesh is my son and nothing was informed by him. In the cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor it is stated by the witness Bheema PW-9 that " jes'k esjk yM+dk gSA jes'k us esjs dks dqN ugha crk;k FkkA eSa esjh cgu ds ;gka esgeku x;k gqvk FkkA jes'k us eq>s dqN ugha crk;k FkkA iqfyl okys 15&20 fnu ckn vk, Fks vaxwBk djk;k FkkA " 18. Meaning thereby, there is no corroboration of the allegation levelled by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh that he has informed the incident to his parents on next date. 19. PW-10 is the witness Kamla. She stated before the Court that I gave Rs. 100/- to deceased Vardi for purchasing cock (Murga) and she left the house but did not come back. No allegations are levelled by her against the present appellants. 20. The learned Trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW-11 Ramesh so as to hold accused appellants guilty. We have perused the statement of PW-11 Ramesh and considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants that he is planted witness. No allegations are levelled by her against the present appellants. 20. The learned Trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW-11 Ramesh so as to hold accused appellants guilty. We have perused the statement of PW-11 Ramesh and considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants that he is planted witness. As per record of the case, the incident took place on 7.1.2006 and F.I.R. was filed by PW-1 Dita against unknown person but witness PW-11 Ramesh did not disclose the incident either before the police or any other person and for the first time give his statement (Ex.D-1) on 5.2.2006 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has narrated the entire story and specifically stated that he gave information of incident to his father Bheema but statement of Bheema were recorded in the trial as PW-9 and the said witness completely denied with regard to the fact that any information was given by eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh to him. 21. Admittedly, for more than 25 days, the so called eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh keep mum and did not give any information with regard to the incident either to the police or to the family members of the deceased for the first time on 5.2.2006 his statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer in which specific allegations were levelled by him. It is true that before the Court in the trial, the said witness reiterated his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but no proper explanation is given by him why the incident was not reported by him either to the police or to the family members of the deceased for more than 25 days and what are the reasons why he has informed the police after 25 days. The only reason is given with regard to explanation that there was threat to him by the accused appellants. 22. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if eye-witness not disclosing the name of assailant for a day and a half then his credibility should be disbelieved. The para No. 2 of the said judgment reads as under: "2. The para No. 2 of the said judgment reads as under: "2. The entire prosecution case against the respondent rest on the oral evidence of Chanchala (PW-6) Who Claimed to be an eye-witness to the murder of Hrudananda, one of the six persons alleged to have been killed by the respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed her evidence, but the High Court found it difficult to accept her testimony. The High Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting her evidence and we find out selves completely in agreement with those reasons. We have carefully gone through the evidence of this witness, but we do not think we can place any reliance on it for the purpose of founding the conviction of the respondent. The evidence suffers from serious infirmities which have been discussed in detail by the High Court. It is not necessary to reiterate them, but it will be sufficient if we refer only to one infirmity which, in our opinion, is of the most serious character. Though according to this witness, she saw the murderous assault on Hrudananda by the respondent and she also saw the respondent coming out of the adjoining house of Nityananda where the rest of the murders were committed, she did not mention the name of the respondent as the assailant for a day and a half. The murders were committed in the night of 13.6.1969 and yet she did not come out with the name of the respondent until the morning of 15.6.1969. It is not possible to accept the explanation sought to be given on behalf of the prosecution that she did not disclose the name of the respondent as the assailant earlier than 15.6.1969 on account of fear of the respondent. There could be no question of any fear from the respondent because in the first place, the respondent was not known to be a gangster or a confirmed criminal about whom people would be afraid, secondly, the police had already arrived at the scene and they were stationed in the club House which was just opposite to the house of the witness and thirdly, A.S.I. Madan Das was her nephew and he had come to the village in connection with the case and had also visited her house on 14.6.1969. It is indeed difficult to believe that this witness should not have disclosed the name of the respondent to the police or even to A.S.I. Madan Das and should have waited till the rooming of 15.6.1969 for giving out the name of the respondent. This is a very serious infirmity which destroys the credibility of the evidence of witness. The High Court has also given various other reasons for rejecting her testimony and most of these reasons are, in our opinion, valid and cogent. If the evidence of this witness is rejected as untrustworthy, nothing survives of the prosecution case. 23. In the case of Raju & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 (1) Cr.LR. (Raj.) 752 the Division Bench of this Court held that eye-witness did not inform anybody about the assault and kept mum for four days, therefore, on the basis of his testimony it is not proper to hold the accused guilty for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The paras Nos. 12 to 14 of the said Judgment are as follows: "12. As per the written report (Ex.P-23) the only witness who possibly could throw light on the incident, was Ram Kishan (PW-3) but he did not support the prosecution case. In this situation, it appears, that informant Modu Lal (PW-19) took the task upon himself, shifted his stand and became the eye-witness of the incident. In State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 153 , the Apex Court held that when a witness claimed to be present in his field and saw the occurrence but in his cross-examination he deposed that he did not own any land in the village where the incident occurred, the shifting stand taken by the witness would clearly show that he was an unreliable witness and not creditworthy. 13. Testimony of Durga Lal (PW-21) also could not have been relied upon in view of his unnatural conduct. Even after seeing the assault he did not inform anybody about the assault and kept mum for about four days. His statement was recorded by the police after four days of the incident. The Supreme Court in the similar situation disbelieved the statement of eye-witness on the ground of his unusual behaviour in Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 10 SCC 670 . 14. His statement was recorded by the police after four days of the incident. The Supreme Court in the similar situation disbelieved the statement of eye-witness on the ground of his unusual behaviour in Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 10 SCC 670 . 14. Learned Trial Judge in our considered opinion committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant on the testimony of informant Modu Lal and which does not inspire confidence." 24. Here in this case, admittedly, the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh keep mum for more than 25 days and did not disclose the names of assailants even though as per his statement he saw the incident. It is also important fact of the case that as per statement of eye-witness he disclosed the name of assailants to his father Bheema just after one day, but Bheema too did not disclose the said fact. More so, PW-9 Bheema turned hostile in the Court and said that no such information was given by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh. 25. In our opinion, the explanation given by the witness PW-11 Ramesh is not acceptable because in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he said that after incident he went back to the home and slept and next day when his father came back then he reported the incident to his father, but the father Bheema PW-9 categorically denied and said that no information was given by his son Ramesh whereas PW-11 Ramesh stated in examination-in chief that " djhc 6 ekg igys 'kfuokj dh ckr gS] esjs ?kj ij ojnh vkbZ Fkh] ckrphr dh Fkh] ojnh us dgk fd nk: ysdj vkvks fQj esjh eka us ,d cksry nk: fi;k Fkk] fQj dgk fd eq>s jksM+ rd NksM+ ns] eSa ojnh dks NksMus x;k FkkA ogka ljnkjk o I;kjk feys Fks] nksuksa ds gkFk esa dqYgkM+h Fkh] ojnh ds lkFk ljnkjk o I;kjk us ekjihV dh Fkh] dqYgkM+h dh mYVh eawn dh ekjh o eq>s dgk fd Hkkx tk oukZ rsjs dks ekj nwaxk o esjs ij iRFkj QsaFks Fks] fQj eSa ?kj pyk x;k o lks x;k] nwljs fnu esjs firk esgeku x, Fks] tks 'kke dks vk, Fks fQj eSaus mudks ckr crkbZ FkhA ljnkjk I;kjk esjs ?kj vk, o dgk fd ojnh dks ekj dj ukuh;k ds edku esa Mky nh gS] tks ckgj iMlky esa Mkyh FkhA " 26. In the cross-examination a specific question was put to him why you have not informed the incident to the Family members of Vardi and police, it is stated by him that " ojnh ds ?kj okyks dks nks rhu fnu fnu ckn irk py Fkk] eSaus esjs firk us ojnh ds ?kj okyksa dks ugha crk;k fd ,slh ?kVuk ns[kh gS] vt[kqn dgk tku ls ekj nwaxk blfy, ugha crk;kA ;g lgh gS fd eSa rhu fnu ?kj ij gh jgk FkkA esjs ?kj ls iqfyl Fkkus tkus esa 10@& yxrs gSaA eSa o esjs firk Fkkus ij ugha x, fd geus ,slh ?kVuk ns[kh gSA " 27. Upon assessment of credibility and reliability of the witness PW-11 Ramesh coupled with the finding given by the learned Trial Court, we are of the opinion that testimony of this witness is seriously doubtful for the reason that the said witness was only 26 years old on the date of alleged incident and saw the incident by his eyes then why he has gone back to home and did not report the incident to the police for more than 25 days. It is also very important to observe that if the incident was reported to the father PW-9 Bheema on the nest day then why his father did not inform the police. In this connection we have considered the very important aspect of the matter that PW-9 Bheema, father or eye-witness Ramesh turned hostile and specifically stated before the Court that no information was given by his son Ramesh to him on the next date of alleged incident. 28. In our opinion, the finding of the learned Trial Court while relying upon the testimony of PW-11 Ramesh to hold accused appellants guilty is not proper because most of the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the testimony of PW-11 Ramesh. 29. With regard to recovery of cloths and weapon after one month, the prosecution produced independent witness PW-12 Karan Singh. 29. With regard to recovery of cloths and weapon after one month, the prosecution produced independent witness PW-12 Karan Singh. The said witness stated before the Court in cross-examination that " eqyfteku ds lkFk ekSds ij 5 fnu ckn x;s FksA igys cjkenxh dh Fkh fQj fxjQ~rkj fd;s FksA fQj igys fxjQ~rkj fd;s FksA ckn esa cjkenxh dh FkhA 5 fnu ckn cjkenxh djus ds fy;s x;s FksA ftl le; cjkenxh dh FkhA ml le; ljnkjk vkSj I;kjk ds ?kj ij dksbZ ugha FksA rkyk yxk gqvk ugha FkkA lkady yxh gqbZ FkhA lkady [kksydj igys ljnkjk vUnj x;k FkkA fQj iqfyl okys x;s FksA eSa ckgj gh [kM+k FkkA I;kjk ds ;gka ij Hkh ,slk gh gqvk FkkA fQj ckgj ykdj gekjs lkeus Fkkusnkj lk0 us dk;Zokgh dh FkhA ljnkjk ds ,d gh dejk gS vkSj mlesa ls xqnMh esa ls dqYgkM+h fudkyh FkhA eSa xsV ij gh [kM+k FkkA " 30. Upon perusal of the statement of this witness, we are of the opinion that recovery of weapon axe is also doubtful. Further, nothing has been said by this witness that any blood was appearing upon the two axes recovered as per information given by the accused appellants Sardara and Pyara. 31. Upon assessment of the evidence of this witness PW-15 Karan Singh of recovery, we are of the opinion that Prosecution has miserably failed to prove recovery of blood stained axes from the appellants, therefore, on the basis of evidence of recovery also, a serious doubt is created upon the prosecution case. It is true that witnesses of investigation supported the prosecution case but we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is no corroborative evidence to support the allegation made by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh against the accused appellants. 32. The aforesaid discussion loudly speaks that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in spite of the fact that the learned Trial Court gave erroneous finding so as to hold the accused appellants guilty for the offence. In the criminal jurisprudence it is the basis principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but in this case prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond registration of the F.I.R. for the first time the incident was disclosed by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh on 5.2.2006 which is after 25 days. In the criminal jurisprudence it is the basis principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but in this case prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond registration of the F.I.R. for the first time the incident was disclosed by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh on 5.2.2006 which is after 25 days. Therefore, it can be said that the said eye-witness is planted witness. 33. We have also considered the fact stated by the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh that on the date of incident, deceased Vardi came to the house of said witness and asked for one bottle of liquor and after consuming the said liquor she said that I may be dropped to the route. In the post mortem report (Ex.P-24) it is nowhere mentioned by the medical officer who has performed the post mortem that liquor was found in the stomach of deceased. Meaning thereby, there is no truth in the statement of PW-11 Ramesh eye-witness that deceased Vardi consumed liquor in his house and, thereafter, left the house. 34. We have categorically analysed the evidence of eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh and other evidence of witnesses namely PW-9 Bheema and PW-8 Udaki father and mother of the eye-witness to whom the eye-witness informed the incident. Admittedly, PW-9 Bheema, father of the eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh not only turned hostile, but said in the cross-examination that no information was given by the eye-witness to him on the next day of the occurrence. A bare perusal of the statement of all the witnesses makes it clear that their narration of the incident is seriously doubtful, more so the eye-witness is not inspiring confidence so as to prove that accused appellants are guilty of committing any offence because neither the evidence of intention is on record nor the statement of so called eye-witness PW-11 Ramesh is corroborated by any other evidence including recovery of weapon. 35. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that learned Trial Court has serious erred in recording finding of guilt against the accused appellants for the offence of murder. 36. In view of the above, while giving benefit of doubt to the accused appellants, this jail appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. 36. In view of the above, while giving benefit of doubt to the accused appellants, this jail appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 43/2006 against the accused appellants is hereby quashed and the accused appellants may be released forthwith if not needed in any other case.