JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Heera Lal assailing judgment dated 18.06.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, District Baran, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Sections 147, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 302/149, and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 IPC One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment Under Section 323/149 IPC Three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment Under Section 324/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment Under Section 325/149 IPC Three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment Under Section 326/149 IPC Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment Under Section 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one years' additional simple imprisonment Genesis of this appeal lies in the incident took place in the night intervening 11.04.1999 and 12.04.1999, in which Ram Ratan, Rampal (both sons of injured Chhotulal, informant/complainant) and Mohanlal were murdered. Besides Chhotulal, three ladies, namely, Kailash Bai, Ramdhani Bai and Kastoori Bai also received injuries. During investigation, total twelve persons, namely, Mohanlal, Raju @ Rajendra, Bajrang Lal, Chaturbhuj, Ram Singh, Ramdayal, Kalawati, Madanlal, Hansraj, Heera Lal (appellant herein), Phool Chand and Prem, were named as accused but the police filed chargesheet against only nine accused. Phool Chand and Prem, both sons of Gopilal, have not been apprehended. Accused Heera Lal was apprehended on 12.03.2011. The police, after investigation, filed additional charge-sheet against him before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chhipa Bardod, who committed the same to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, District Baran for trial. Trial in the matter of other co-accused was concluded and learned trial court, vide common judgment dated 27.09.2007 convicted six accused and acquitted three accused. Therefore, trial was proceeded against present appellant separately. Trial in the matter of other co-accused was concluded and learned trial court, vide common judgment dated 27.09.2007 convicted six accused and acquitted three accused. Therefore, trial was proceeded against present appellant separately. Facts of the case are that a 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-33) was given by Chhotu Lal (PW-2) at 8.30 AM on 12.04.1999 to Station House Officer of Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran, wherein it was alleged that in the previous night, his son Ram Ratan and his wife Kailash Bai (PW-1) were sleeping in their agriculture field. The informant and his wife Kastoori Bai (PW-3) were also sleeping separately in adjoining agriculture field. His son Rampal was sleeping outside the house in the agriculture field, whereas his wife Ramdhani Bai (PW-5) was sleeping on a cot inside the said house. Their daughter Manju (PW-25) was also sleeping with her. Chhotu Lal alleged that while sleeping on a cot, he had covered himself by a blanket and his wife had also covered her body by blanket. Someone inflicted 'lathi' blows on his head while he was asleep, as a result of which he became unconscious. Similarly 2-3 'lathi' blows were delivered on the head and face of his wife. When he gained some consciousness in the morning, he went to Sattar, whose agriculture field was situated nearby, where he also called Shrilal. Both of them enquired from him as to how he received the injuries. The informant told that someone had given them beating in the previous night. He called for help but no one came forward as all were sleeping separately. They were subjected to beating by 7-8 persons. He alleged that yesterday evening when he went to the village, he met Ramsingh S/o Gopilal, Mohan and Raju of village Raika. Chaturbhuj Meena and Bajranglal Meena were taking liquor in the house of appellant and were telling that they would commit a murder. The informant heard them speak so but he did not then pay any heed thereto. Certain other persons of the village were also consuming liquor with them. His sons Ram Ratan and Rampal and Mohanlal of village Guradi have died in the incident. He alleged that accused Ramsingh and Mohan had enmity with them and therefore they subjected them to beating with intention to commit their murder. Certain other persons of the village were also consuming liquor with them. His sons Ram Ratan and Rampal and Mohanlal of village Guradi have died in the incident. He alleged that accused Ramsingh and Mohan had enmity with them and therefore they subjected them to beating with intention to commit their murder. On the basis of the 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-33), a regular first information report, bearing FIR No.134/99, was registered on 12.04.1999 with Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran. The police, after investigation, filed additional charge-sheet against accused, as indicated above. Charges for aforesaid offences were framed against accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 20 witnesses and got 41 documents exhibited. The trial court, vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-appellant, argued that injured Chhotu Lal Meena, who is father of deceased Ram Ratan and Rampal, in his 'parcha bayan' did not name any of the assailants. He rather stated that when he and his wife were attacked, both of them were asleep with their bodies covered by blankets. He gained consciousness early in the morning. He went to Sattar, whose agriculture field is adjoining, and Shrilal. Both of them enquired from him about the incident, whereupon he told them that unknown persons had attacked them on the previous night. Learned counsel submitted that injured Chhotulal could not depose before the court because he died one year after the incident, but independent witnesses, namely, Shrilal (PW-9) and Sattar (PW-17), to whom the informant is claimed to have first approached, have corroborated what he alleged in the 'parcha bayan'. Sattar (PW-17) has stated that when Chhotulal approached him, he was having injuries on his eye and head. He told that thieves have subjected him to beating and snatched Rs.2000/- from him, but he did not name who were they. In cross-examination in another trial against co-accused also he stated that Chhotulal did not inform him name of assailants. Shrilal (PW-9) has also made similar statement that when Chhotulal approached them, he did not tell them name of any of the assailants. He rather stated that certain unknown persons subjected them to beating. Bihari Lal (PW-6) has stated that Chhotulal, on the date of incident, came to his tube well. Shrilal (PW-9) has also made similar statement that when Chhotulal approached them, he did not tell them name of any of the assailants. He rather stated that certain unknown persons subjected them to beating. Bihari Lal (PW-6) has stated that Chhotulal, on the date of incident, came to his tube well. On asking, he told him that certain thieves have subjected them to beating. This witness has also stated that Chhotulal did not tell name of assailants. Pratap, who was present in the agriculture field of Sattar along-with Srilal and Biharilal, was not examined in present case. It is submitted that utmost credence has to be given to the testimony of Bihari Lal (PW- 6), Shrilal (PW-9) and Sattar (PW-17) as to what they have stated because that attracts the doctrine of res gestae with reference to Section 6 of the Evidence Act. These are witnesses of truth because they were first of all approached by injured Chhotulal and told them about the attack on his family but despite enquiry by these witnesses, he did not give name of the assailants. Manju Bai has not been examined in the present case. Learned counsel argued that the police received information from Prahlad Kumar even before registration of first information report on 'parcha bayan' of Chhotulal. In said report, Prahlad Kumar claimed that Manju Bai D/o Ram Ratan came to him and informed that incident of 'maar-peet' took place in previous night at the tube-well of their agricultural field, in which her family members received injuries and one-two persons have died and their dead bodies were lying at the tube-well in agriculture field. This Prahlad Kumar has been examined as PW-8. He stated that Chhotulal was his 'tauji' (father's elder brother) and that Chhotulal sent Manju Bai to him to inform about the incident. When he went to the place of incident, Chhotulal asked him to go to the police station to report the matter. Report submitted by him was Exhibit P-23, which was entered in the Rojnamcha as Rapat No.608. He then accompanied the police officials to the place of incident. Chhotulal did not tell him names of assailants. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Manju Bai gave him information of the incident at 6 o' clock in the morning. Report submitted by him was Exhibit P-23, which was entered in the Rojnamcha as Rapat No.608. He then accompanied the police officials to the place of incident. Chhotulal did not tell him names of assailants. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Manju Bai gave him information of the incident at 6 o' clock in the morning. He further stated that he narrated the same thing in the report given by him to the police as what told to him by Chhotulal. Referring to statements of injured Kailash Bai (PW-1) W/o deceased Ram Ratan, and Kastoori Bai W/o injured Chhotulal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that these witnesses in examination-in-chief have clearly stated that at the time of incident they were in sleepy condition and that it was not known to them as to who gave them beating. It was not known to them whether Heera Lal was one of the assailants. Both these witnesses were declared hostile. Their police statements were recorded belatedly on 29.04.1999 and 22.04.1999 i.e. after 17 and 10 days from the date of incident, when for the first time she named the accused as assailant. Injured Ramdhani Bai (PW-5) stated that it was Heeralal and Phool Chand, who gave her beating. She also named Jagdish, Hansraj and Kali Bai as those who gave beating. She stated that Madan also gave her beating. Kali Bai is known as Kalawati. Accused Heera Lal was amongst the assailants. She claimed to have suffered injuries on her head, eye and teeth. This witness is not speaking truth and has made lot of improvements and exaggerations. Her police statement was recorded belatedly on 06.07.1999 i.e. after about three months from the date of incident, when for the first time she named the accused as assailant. According to learned counsel for appellant, Hari Ram (PW-10) is a planted and tutored witness. He happens to be brother of deceased Mohanlal. Perusal of his statement makes it clear that he reached the place of occurrence much after the incident. He appears to be a witness of hearsay. In cross-examination, he himself stated that he did not see anyone causing 'maar-peet'. Hukum Chand (PW-6) has been declared hostile, but, in his cross-examination, he stated that Heera Lal was not present at the house of Mohanalal at the time when the tape recorder was being played. He appears to be a witness of hearsay. In cross-examination, he himself stated that he did not see anyone causing 'maar-peet'. Hukum Chand (PW-6) has been declared hostile, but, in his cross-examination, he stated that Heera Lal was not present at the house of Mohanalal at the time when the tape recorder was being played. Narain Singh (PW-16), who recorded the 'parcha bayan' of Chhotulal, has not alleged that any of the accused was named by Chhotulal therein. 'Parcha bayan' of Chhotulal is Exhibit P-39. In cross-examination, he admitted that in Exhibit P-39 name of Heera Lal was not mentioned. Learned counsel, referring to statement of Surajmal (PW-2), argued that he happens to be younger son of injured Chhotulal and brother of deceased Ram Ratan and Rampal. He has stated that on being informed by the villagers, he immediately reached the tube-well in their agriculture field. His father did not tell him names of assailants and from which village they belonged. He has not named the appellant as one of the assailants. This witness has also been declared hostile. In cross-examination by the prosecution, this witness stated that his father did not tell him the names of the assailants. His father only told him that some unknown persons came and caused 'maar-peet' with them. He denied to have enmity between the parties. Moolchand (PW-12), another son of injured Chhotulal and brother of deceased Ram Ratan and Rampal, has also been declared hostile. He too stated that his father has died due to illness. He denied that there was any enmity between the parties. He went to the place of incident in early morning of following day. He denied having seen any person causing 'maarpeet' with them. He stated that accused Heera Lal was not amongst the assailants. His father did not tell him the names of assailants. In cross-examination by the prosecution, this witness stated that it is wrong to say that his father told him that 17-18 persons gave beating to them. Appellant Heera Lal was not involved in the incident of 'maar-peet'. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that independent witnesses, namely, Bihari Lal (PW-6),Prahlad Kumar (PW-8), Shrilal (PW-9) and Sattar (PW-17), neighbours of injured Chhotulal, have consistently stated that Chhotulal, the informant, told them that certain thieves have subjected them to beating but did not give their names. Appellant Heera Lal was not involved in the incident of 'maar-peet'. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that independent witnesses, namely, Bihari Lal (PW-6),Prahlad Kumar (PW-8), Shrilal (PW-9) and Sattar (PW-17), neighbours of injured Chhotulal, have consistently stated that Chhotulal, the informant, told them that certain thieves have subjected them to beating but did not give their names. Though, Bihari Lal (PW-6) has been declared hostile, but other three witnesses have not been declared hostile. Relying on judgments of the Supreme court in Javed Masood and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan – (2010) 3 SCC 538 and Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan – (2005) 5 SCC 272, learned counsel for appellant argued that their testimony would bind the prosecution and therefore they have to be believed especially because in 'parcha bayan' also injured Chhotulal has stated so. Learned counsel argued that it was a blind murder case and when the police failed to crack the case, it booked the appellant on the basis of mere suspicion and falsely implicated them by fabricating the evidence. It is argued that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of truth. Moral conviction cannot be a substitute for legal conviction. It is settled principle of law that even if where in a case two views are possible after appreciation of evidence, then the view in favour of the accused is liable to be accepted. Learned counsel, in support of the argument, has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and Others – (2005) 9 SCC 94 , to argue that the courts of law should not be swayed away by emotions. Every murder is a heinous offence but the question that the court is called upon to decide is whether accused-appellant is the same who committed murder. In the facts of the present case, learned trial court has grossly misread the evidence with the result, which turned into manifest mis-appreciation of evidence, which, in turn, has caused great prejudice to accused-appellant. Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and argued that in the evening of the fateful day, the accused assembled on the platform of the house of accused Mohan Lal and were seen consuming liquor. They were all discussing that they would liquidate Chhotulal Patel and his family. Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and argued that in the evening of the fateful day, the accused assembled on the platform of the house of accused Mohan Lal and were seen consuming liquor. They were all discussing that they would liquidate Chhotulal Patel and his family. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that accused Kalawati Bai lodged first information report against deceased Ram Ratan on allegation of rape and owing to this fact there was enmity between two groups. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions, perused the material on record and respectfully studied the cited precedents. Before we proceed to examine the arguments in support of challenge to the findings recorded by learned trial court on various grounds, we deem it appropriate to discuss and analyze the statements of various prosecution witnesses in the context of contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by the defence. Evidence of the case reveals that earliest information received by the police of the incident was through Prahlad Kumar (PW-8), which was entered in the 'Rojnamcha Aam' as Rapat No.608 and that has been produced on record as Exhibit P-23. Therein it is recorded that Manju Bai D/o deceased Ram Ratan came to this witness and informed that incident of 'maar-peet' has taken place in their agriculture field, where 1 or 2 persons had died and their dead bodies were lying in the agriculture field. When this witness was examined in the court as PW-8, he made slight improvement upon his earlier version, which he gave to the police and was entered as Rapat No.608 (Exhibit P-23), by stating that he, on receiving information from Manju Bai, first went to his uncle Chhotulal (Tauji) at the place of incident, who asked him to go to the police to give report of the matter and then accompanied the police party to the place of incident. Chhotulal did not name any person, who assaulted the deceased and injured. Obviously, it was not known to him as to who attacked Chhotulal and his family members. Even the 'parcha bayan' of Chhotulal is quite contradictory and does not give complete picture of the manner in which the incident took place. Therein, he has stated that he and his wife were sleeping over the harvest of coriander. Both of them had covered their bodies by blankets. Even the 'parcha bayan' of Chhotulal is quite contradictory and does not give complete picture of the manner in which the incident took place. Therein, he has stated that he and his wife were sleeping over the harvest of coriander. Both of them had covered their bodies by blankets. The accused inflicted injuries on their heads and face by 'lathis' and they became unconscious and could not recognize them. His son Ram Ratan and wife Kailash Bai were sleeping in the agriculture field adjacent to their house, whereas his younger son Rampal was sleeping on the wooden box lying outside the house and his wife Ramdhani was sleeping inside the house. It is quite unnatural for this witness not to have seen the accused and heard the sound of attack on two sons and their wives. But in 'parcha bayan' he has stated that on receiving the 'lathi' blow, he immediately became unconsciousness. When he gained consciousness in the morning, he tied 'safi' (a piece of cloth) on his head and washed his face and then went to adjoining agriculture field of Sattar where Shrilal was also present. He has stated that he told both of them that certain unknown thieves had attacked them and looted a sum of Rs.2000/- lying his his pocket. Then starts another part of story narrated by this witness in his 'parcha bayan' that number of such accused could be 7-8 and that on previous night around 4 o' clock he met Ram Singhm Mohan and Raju of village Rai. Ram Singh, Mohan, Raju, Chaturbhus Meena and Bajranglal, who were sitting in the house of Gopilal and consuming liquor. He heard them saying that they would commit murder of someone but he did not pay any heed to their discussion. He therefore expressed doubt that since his family had enmity with Ram Singh and Mohan, it could be they who committed the murder. Kailash Bai (PW-1) W/o deceased Ram Ratan, in examination in chief has clearly stated that at the time of incident they were in sleepy condition and that it is not known to her as to who gave them beating. She further stated that it is not known to her whether Heera Lal was one of the assailants. She also stated that she could not say as to who caused injury to her by 'dharia'. She did not see torch with accused Kalawati. She further stated that it is not known to her whether Heera Lal was one of the assailants. She also stated that she could not say as to who caused injury to her by 'dharia'. She did not see torch with accused Kalawati. She further stated that she has not seen accused Heeralal causing 'maar-peet'. She has been declared hostile. In cross-examination by defence, she stated that she became unconscious immediately on receiving injuries and she had not seen Heera Lal present on the spot. In cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, she stated that it was a full moon night. She had not seen accused Heera Lal causing 'maar-peet'. Similarly, injured Kastoori Bai (PW-3) W/o injured Chhotulal, in examination in chief, has stated that it is not known to her whether Heera Lal was one of the assailants. At the time of incident they were in sleepy condition and that it is not known to her as to who were assailants. In cross-examination, she has clearly stated that accused Heera Lal was not among the accused who gave them beating. Injured Ramdhani Bai (PW-5) stated that it was Heeralal and Phool Chand, who gave her beating. She also named Jagdish, Hansraj and Kali Bai as those who gave beating. She stated that Madan also gave her beating. Kali Bai is known as Kalawati. Accused Heera Lal was amongst the assailants. She claimed to have suffered injuries on her head, eye and teeth. She stated that it was a dark night and the incident took place at 2 o clock in the night. The assailants were armed with 'karpa', 'gandsi' and 'dharia'. They were also having batteries. Her anklets, necklace and nose pin were not found at the spot. However, in cross-examination, she stated that she was in sound sleep. She woke up only when she was given beating but prior thereto the assailants had killed her husband. Her statement is contradictory when she stated that she saw the accused giving beating to her husband and during that 'maar-peet', she woke up. Initially she stated that there were 17-18 assailants but later she stated that they were 12- 13. She stated that it is now known to her as to at what time the incident took place but it must be mid night. She expressed her inability to state as to which assailant was armed with which armament. Initially she stated that there were 17-18 assailants but later she stated that they were 12- 13. She stated that it is now known to her as to at what time the incident took place but it must be mid night. She expressed her inability to state as to which assailant was armed with which armament. All the assailants, 17-18 in number, gave beating to her husband and all of them also gave beating to her. They also gave beating to Mohan and other persons but then she stated that she did not see the assailants causing 'maar-peet' with them. She stated that there was no enmity between the accused and complainant party. Her ear tops, nose pin, chain were kept in the box but they were not found on the spot. She stated that she does not know the names of the assailants, however, she stated that the assailants were of two-three villages. Her police statement was recorded on 06.07.1999 i.e. three months after the incident. No doubt, she is an injured witness and therefore certain amount of credibility has to be attached to her testimony but this would depend on the quality of evidence that she gave. The fact that accused were not named in information given to the police at earliest point of time i.e. Rapat No.608 (Exhibit P-23) and 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-39), wherein only a doubt was expressed by injured Chhotulal, we have to subject their testimony to greatest amount of circumspection and before relying the same look for sufficient corroboration whether the appellant was actually assailant or whether he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. Out of three injured witnesses, only Ramdhani Bai (PW-5) has named appellant Heera Lal, and another two have been declared hostile. But testimony of this witness is doubtful. On the one hand, she stated that at the time of incident she was in sound sleep and she woke up only when the accused gave beating to her and prior thereto the accused murdered her husband, on the other, she stated that she saw the accused giving beating to her husband. She also stated that it was dark night. It is not possible for a person to see any person causing beating in a dark night, let alone identify them. She also stated that it was dark night. It is not possible for a person to see any person causing beating in a dark night, let alone identify them. She stated that in all 17-18 accused had given beating to her but her injury report shows that she received only four injuries. In cross-examination, she has stated that she does not know names of the assailants. Suspicion of the complainant is founded on allegation of rape, which co-accused Kalawati is said to have made against deceased Ram Ratan in the FIR lodged against him, and also in view of the fact that in the evening of the fateful day, the accused were seen participating in a feast on the 'chabutra' (platform) of the house of accused Mohanlal, where they were allegedly consuming liquor and meat, and using abusive language for the family of Chhotulal and threatening to liquidate them. But then suspicion howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of truth. The conviction has to be based on legal evidence. Testimony of prosecution evidence in the present case not only does not find any corroboration but independently also it does not inspire much confidence. All the three injured eyewitnesses have alleged that various ornaments of gold and silver, which they were wearing, were snatched by the accused but none of these articles have been recovered. Chhotulal, in his 'parcha bayan', alleged that Rs.2000/- lying in his pocket, were looted by the accused but that amount has also not been recovered. Chhotulal himself could not appear in the witness box as he died about 12 months after the incident. Accused were not named as assailants in the 'parcha bayan' of Chhotulal, but for the first time injured eyewitnesses, namely, Kailash Bai (PW-1), Kastoori Bai (PW-3) and Ramdhani Bai (PW-5), by way of afterthought, in their police statements (Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-2) recorded belatedly on 29.04.1999, 22.04.1999 and 06.07.1999, respectively, have sought to implicate names of accused on the basis of suspicion because they suspected that it could be the accused who might have committed the offence. Of those three, two have not supported the prosecution case and have declared hostile. The prosecution in this case has produced all those four persons, namely, Biharilal (PW-6), Shrilal (PW-9), and Sattar (PW-17), who were working in his agriculture field of Sattar to harvest the crop of coriander. Of those three, two have not supported the prosecution case and have declared hostile. The prosecution in this case has produced all those four persons, namely, Biharilal (PW-6), Shrilal (PW-9), and Sattar (PW-17), who were working in his agriculture field of Sattar to harvest the crop of coriander. These witnesses are consistent in their version before the court that on their enquiry Chhotulal told them of the attack on his family but could not give the name of any of the assailants except stating that certain unknown thieves had attacked them. Though Biharilal (PW-6) has been declared hostile, but learned Public Prosecutor did not seek permission of the trial court to cross-examine remaining two witnesses to get them declared hostile. The prosecution would therefore be bound by the testimony of their witnesses. The Supreme Court in Raja Ram, supra, held that testimony of such a witness cannot be sidelined as it would be binding on the prosecution and defence can rely upon such evidence. The Supreme Court in Javed Masood, supra, relying on its earlier judgment in Raja Ram, supra, taking note of the fact that four of the prosecution witnesses were never declared hostile by the prosecution, though their evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, but rather supported the defence, held that there is nothing in law that precludes the defence to rely on their evidence. The Supreme Court in Mukhtair Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2005) 5 SCC 258, was dealing with a case where the doctor, who was examined as a witness by the prosecution, stated that the deceased was being told by one K that she should implicate the accused or else she might have to face prosecution, and the doctor was not declared 'hostile'. While reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that it was open to the defence to rely on the evidence of the doctor and his testimony was binding on the prosecution. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and Others, supra, was dealing with a case where murder of five members of a family had taken place at midnight in a village. Accused were closely related to deceased. Trial court convicted the accused for offence under Sections 148, 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to death. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and Others, supra, was dealing with a case where murder of five members of a family had taken place at midnight in a village. Accused were closely related to deceased. Trial court convicted the accused for offence under Sections 148, 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to death. The High Court in appeal, acquitted the accused of the charge. The State of Punjab preferred appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court. The prosecution produced two eyewitnesses, who claimed that they were sleeping on two separate cots on the roof of the house from where the incident was visible. The High Court did not believe their presence on the place of occurrence because while one of them was resident of another village and another one was studying in a school of different village, where he resided with his grandmother. The wooden staircase leading to the rooftop and the cots were not shown in the sketch plan. One of these two witnesses was informant and the High Court noted that his testimony did not find corroboration because in the first information report he had named only three assailants, but in the course of deposition before the court he has alleged that there were six assailants, which included all five brothers and their associate. Similarly, improvement was made by another witness, who named only three assailants in the course of investigation but later sought to implicate three more. The High Court also noticed several inconsistencies between the evidence of these two witnesses. One of the witnesses, who was admittedly present in the house where the occurrence took place, was not examined and this fact also heavily weighed with the High Court. The High Court has also commented upon the recovery of weapons allegedly made at the instance of the accused and noticed the fact that the alleged disclosure statements were not supported by the evidence of any independent witness and even the Serologist report did not give any clear opinion about the origin of the blood allegedly found on the weapons. The High Court held that the motive suggested by the prosecution did not appear to be a sufficient motive for the respondents to commit such a ghastly offence. The High Court held that the motive suggested by the prosecution did not appear to be a sufficient motive for the respondents to commit such a ghastly offence. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court by holding that view taken by the High Court was reasonable view and fully supported by evidence and hence did not deserve to be interfered with in appeal of the State. The Supreme Court in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mahendra Singh Dahiy – (2011) 3 SCC 109 , was dealing with a case where husband was suspected to commit murder of his wife on first night of honeymoon trip in Brussels. Though the husband explained that wife herself left him in the morning following honeymoon night. Dismembered parts of a body and a severed head were found next day in a rubbish container which was about 200 meter away from hotel. Torso was also recovered after two months from a lake, which was 17 minutes walk from hotel. The accused was tried for the offence. The trial court convicted the accused husband but the High Court acquitted him of the charge. The State through Central Bureau of Investigation filed appeal before the Supreme Court with leave of the court. The Supreme Court, on thorough examination of prosecution evidence, held that the High Court was right in acquitting husband because circumstantial evidence was not consistent with husband's guilt. In those facts, the Supreme Court, in para 24 of the report, has as under:- “We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, particularly keeping in view the gruesome nature of the crime and the complexities presented in the investigation, as also at the trial of this particular case. Undoubtedly, this case demonstrates the actions of a depraved soul. The manner in which the crime has been committed in this case, demonstrates the depths to which the human spirit/soul can sink. But no matter how diabolical the crime, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Given the tendency of human beings to become emotional and subjective when faced with crimes of depravity, the Courts have to be extra cautious not to be swayed by strong sentiments of repulsion and disgust. But no matter how diabolical the crime, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Given the tendency of human beings to become emotional and subjective when faced with crimes of depravity, the Courts have to be extra cautious not to be swayed by strong sentiments of repulsion and disgust. It is in such cases that the Court has to be on its guard and to ensure that the conclusion reached by it are not influenced by emotion, but are based on the evidence produced in the Court. Suspicion no matter how strong can not, and should not be permitted to, take the place of proof. Therefore, in such cases, the Courts are to ensure a cautious and balanced appraisal of the intrinsic value of the evidence produced in Court.” The genesis of the incident, in the present case, appears to have been completely withheld from the court or could not be brought before the court due to faulty investigation. Therefore this court is inclined to uphold the contention of the defence that it was blind murder case, which the police was not able to crack. The accused has been proceeded against only on the ground of suspicion, which is sought to be substantiated by a very weak motive. The motive attributed to accused is lodgment of first information report by accused Kalwati against deceased Ram Ratan on allegation of rape. Additionally, it is also alleged that accused had abducted Taruvanta, daughter of Chhotiya, resident of same village, who was recovered from accused Mohan Lal and Ram Singh after about one-and-a-half-month. It is also alleged that the accused were seen taking part in the feast organized in the house of accused Mohan Lal in the evening of the fateful day. Some of the prosecution witnesses have been made to say that accused were taking liquor and were heard abusing Chhotulal Patel and his family and also threatening to liquidate them. Such motive by itself does not furnish proof of complicity of the accused-appellant in the crime and the evidence otherwise does not prove that it was the accused and none else, who may have committed the murder. The guilt of the accused-appellant in present case on the basis of evidence therefore cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The guilt of the accused-appellant in present case on the basis of evidence therefore cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite that howsoever grave the alleged offence may be, suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. It is the mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The burden always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While dealing with the case of this nature, the courts have to be extra cautious not to be swayed by strong sentiments of repulsion and disgust. It is in such cases that the Court, on its guard, has to ensure that the conclusion reached by it is not influenced by emotion, but are based on cogent and reliable evidence, which is acceptable in law. In our considered opinion, therefore, it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction of the accused-appellant on the kind of evidence that has been adduced in this case. The appeal filed by accused appellant, therefore, deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. He is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Heera Lal is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months. In the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.