JUDGMENT : V.K. Vyas, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant Manna Lal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra, District Baran, in Sessions Case No.93/2006, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence u/s 302 for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- ; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13.9.2006 at about 6.30 A.M., complainant Gangaram S/o Shri Narayan Meena R/o Bardawada, accompanied by his brother Hajari Lal, submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) to Shri Jodha Ram, SHO, Police Station Chhibabarod, camp at Chandwardi, Eklera Road, to the effect that today morning at about 5.30 AM, Rajesh S/o Shri Kastoor Chand Meena R/o Bardawada came to his house and taken away his son Suresh for jogging to a Nala towards Chaunch Badi. Rajesh and Manna Lal - Master S/o Shri Dev Lal Meena, R/o Bardawada killed his son Suresh by sword. Shreelal S/o Shri Dev Lal, R/o Bardawada and Parmanand S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Meena, R/o Kolukheda have seen the occurrence. Dead body of Suresh is lying at the spot. On receipt of this information, SHO found the dead body lying in an agricultural field. On inspection, a bleeding wound on left side of neck, a bleeding wound in front of neck, a bleeding wound on left ear, three wounds of cut on fingers of left hand were found and the dead body was completely blood stained. SHO endorsed the report (Ex.P-1) accordingly and sent it for registration of formal FIR to the police station through constable Anil Singh. On the same day at about 7.15 A.M., formal FIR No.282/2006 was registered at Police Station Chhepabarod. During investigation, an inquest of dead body (Ex.P-2), site inspection memo (Ex.P-3), memo of handing over the dead body to the complainant Ganga Ram (Ex.P-4), Memo of taking photography (Ex.P-5), memo of photography of dead body (Ex.P-6), memo of seizure of blood smeared soil (Ex.P-7), memo of blood stained grass and control soil (Ex.P- 8) and seizure memo of shirt and Baniyan stained with blood found on the dead body (Ex.P-9) were prepared in presence of witnesses - Morpal (PW-3) and Durga Lal (PW-6). After recording statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, accused appellant was arrested on 15.9.2006 vide memo of arrest (Ex.P-22). While in custody, the accused appellant Manna Lal gave an information that he had hidden a sword in his house, which he wanted to get recovered. The information u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, was recorded vide memo (Ex.P-23). The sword having blood stains was recovered vide memo (Ex.P-10). Site memo of place of recovery of sword (Ex.P-11) also prepared. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted vide memo (Ex.P-50). Seized articles were deposited in Malkhana of police station, wherefrom, they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. FSL report (Ex.P-51) was obtained. After completing investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Chhipabarod, for the offence punishable u/s 302 and 34 IPC and a separate charge-sheet was also filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota against another - Rajesh Meena, being juvenile. The Judicial Magistrate, Chhipabarod committed the case for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, wherefrom, the case was transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra, District Baran. 3. Learned trial court examined 23 witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution. The accused appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant replied that the prosecution has submitted wrong evidence. Due to enmity, he was implicated in this matter. He was working as Lab. Assistant. On 12.9.2006, he was on duty from 7-00 to 12.00 O'clock. Thereafter, he traveled in a bus for in-laws house at Moreli (Iklera) village. There, he got pain in his teeth and jaw. His brother-in-law, Ram Swaroop took him to Government Hospital there. He remained in his in-laws house on 13.9.2006 day and night at Moreli. He does not know this incident. He is innocent. In defence, four witnesses were examined. In all, 51 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and five documents were exhibited on behalf of defence. After hearing the final arguments of both the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 10.10.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the learned trial court has failed to consider the statement of Ganga Ram (PW-1) in right perspective. He has stated that Phoolchand went to police station to call police. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the learned trial court has failed to consider the statement of Ganga Ram (PW-1) in right perspective. He has stated that Phoolchand went to police station to call police. He has admitted that after conducting proceedings at the spot, police took him to police station and there he gave a report of the matter. He admitted that he was taken by police to all the places till 2.00 PM and after 2.00 PM he was brought to police station, where he submitted the report. Phoolchand has not been produced in witness box by the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the case hinges only on the testimony of Parmanand (PW-15). Two persons have been alleged to be eye witnesses. Shreelal (PW-7) has become hostile, whereas Parmanand (PW-15) has made many improvements, contradictions and omissions in his testimony vis-a-vis statement given by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He is resident of village Kohadi and seems to be a chance witness. He stated that he had come to Bardawada to meet his daughter but he halted in the night in the house of Shreelal. He stated that he went to get fresh in the morning towards another village Chandbardi is quiet surprising. The place where he reached and saw the occurrence is about 1/2 Km. away from the house of Shreelal. Thus, the whole conduct of this witness is unnatural. His statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after 2-3 days of the incident. 6. It is argued that the learned trial court has wrongly held that the clothes of accused appellant were having the same blood as that of deceased. Blood group of the deceased was determined, but blood group of the appellant was not get determined. Therefore, it cannot be said in conclusively that the blood found on seized clothes, alleged to be of appellant, was of the deceased only. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that as per seizure memo of pent and shirt of the appellant (Ex.P-15), on 15.9.2006 the accused appellant was found, when he was arrested, wearing pent and shirt stained with blood and the same were seized on 15.9.2006 at about 7.30 PM in presence of Ram Sevak, ASI and Anil Singh, constable. No independent witness was procured while seizing these articles. The appellant is said to be a teacher. No independent witness was procured while seizing these articles. The appellant is said to be a teacher. Surprisingly, after committing the crime early in the morning on 13.9.2006, he continued till his arrest, to put on the blood stained clothes. 8. It has also been submitted that Morpal (PW-3), who is said to be an independent witness, in presence of whom site of the crime was inspected in the morning of 13.9.2006, has stated that on the site of crime a sword, lying there, was taken by police. But the prosecution story is that sword, the weapon of offence, was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant from his house. The prosecution did not get declare Morpal (PW-3), hostile. Therefore, a doubt is created whether weapon of offence, seized on 13.9.2006 from the site of crime, has been planted as recovered on 15.9.2006 at the instance of the accused appellant. Moreover, the sword seized vide memo (Ex.P-10) was found to have blood stains. But, as per FSL report (Ex.P-51), no human blood was found on the sword. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that Jodha Ram (PW-19), Investigating Officer, has admitted in his cross examination that some 18-19 persons of Bardawada attacked on the persons of Mali community of Chandbardi village. It is true that Mahendra Kumar Mali of Chandbardi village gave a report against Hajari Lal, Gangaram, Morpal, Ramswaroop, Pana Chand, Dhanraj, Pappu, Shreelal, etc. and 8-10 other persons which is Ex.D-4. Jodha Ram (PW-19) further stated that on the instant incident, when assembled people went there, then a shoot out took place there, wherein Ram swaroop got a bullet injury. FIR was registered u/s 307/34 IPC and u/s 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against Ram Pratap, Laxman, Brijmohan, Mahendra Mali, R/o Chandbardi which is Ex.D-5. It is true that as per FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5), medical examination of injuries of Ram swaroop was conducted. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the incident did not take place as alleged to be, rather, relating to the fateful day, three FIRs were registered. They are - Ex.P- 24 (282/2006), Ex.D-4 (283/2006) and Ex.D-5 (285/2006). FIR No.282/2006 is pertaining to the instant case. FIR No.283/2006 was registered on the complaint of Mahendra Mali against Hajari Lal, Ganga Ram, Morpal, Ram Swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu, etc. They are - Ex.P- 24 (282/2006), Ex.D-4 (283/2006) and Ex.D-5 (285/2006). FIR No.282/2006 is pertaining to the instant case. FIR No.283/2006 was registered on the complaint of Mahendra Mali against Hajari Lal, Ganga Ram, Morpal, Ram Swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu, etc. and 8-10 other persons of village Bardawada. FIR No.285/2006 was registered on the complaint of Ram Swaroop against Ram Pratap, Laxman, Brijmohan and Mahendra Mali, R/o Chandbardi. All three FIRs are relating to fights taken place between the complainant and party and Mahendra Kumar etc., persons of Mali Community of village Chandbardi. In the instant case, story of the prosecution is that Rajesh Meena took away the deceased on pretext of jogging and he and appellant Manna Lal murdered him. In the FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5), it has been reported by complainant Ramswaroop that at about 4.00 AM on 13.9.2006, his nephew Suresh went for jogging along with Rajesh Meena. After some time, Rajesh Meena came back and told that Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Laxman Mali, R/o Chandbardi has beaten Suresh with sword and due to injuries of sword on the neck, has died. He also got injured due to beating given to him. On knowing this, complainant Ram Swaroop accompanied by Ganga Ram, Morpal, Hajari Lal, Phoolchand and Dhanji Meena rushed there and saw that Ram Swaroop, Brijmohan and Mahendra Mali were standing besides the dead body of Suresh with weapons in their hands. For this, a scuffle took place between the rival parties and after beating Ram Swaroop and others, Mahendra Mali and his men, fled away. Ram Swaroop got injured of pallets on a gun fire. FIR No.283/2006 (Ex.D-4) was registered on the information given by Mahendra Kumar Mali, alleging inter alia, that in the morning of 13.9.2006 at about 6.00 or 6.30 AM, when they were sleeping in their houses in the village Chandbardi, Hajari Lal, Ganga Ram, Brijmohan, Ram Swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu and 8-10 other persons of village Bardawada came abusing and started beating saying that Ram Swaroop has killed our Suresh. Mahendra Kumar Mali got injury on his head, uncle Ram Swaroop also got injuries on his head. His grand-father Laxman also got injured. Then his grand-father Laxman brought out a Topidar licensed gun and during the scuffle, a gun fire took place, whereupon Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Jagnnathwas hit by a bullet. Mahendra Kumar Mali got injury on his head, uncle Ram Swaroop also got injuries on his head. His grand-father Laxman also got injured. Then his grand-father Laxman brought out a Topidar licensed gun and during the scuffle, a gun fire took place, whereupon Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Jagnnathwas hit by a bullet. Had Laxman not brought the gun, these people might have killed the complainant and all others. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that in the FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5), the name of the assailant, who killed the deceased Suresh was mentioned as Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Laxman Mali, R/o Chandbardi. There is no reference in it of Shreelal and Parmanand to be eye witnesses of the instance incident. 12. In defence, Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Nawalkishore (DW-1), Nawalkishore (DW-2), Danmal (DW-3) and Devlal (DW-4) were examined. They corroborated the defence story that on 12.9.2006, appellant Manna Lal went to his in-laws' village and remained there till day and night of 13.9.2006. Non-mentioning of the name of Manna Lal as a person, who killed the deceased Suresh in FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5) and testimonies of DW-1 to DW-4 are sufficient to believe that the appellant Manna Lal has no connection with the instant murder. 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submit that though the recoveries of weapons of offence and blood stained clothes have not been proved, yet if they are taken to be proved, even then in the instant matter, story of the prosecution has not been established beyond doubt, as alleged eye witnesses have not corroborated the same. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati etc. v. Chhatrasinh and others, AIR 1977 SC 1753 . 14. Learned Public Prosecutor submit that prosecution has proved the story not only with ocular testimony of the witnesses, but also by incriminating circumstances based on recoveries of weapon of offence and blood stained clothes at the instance of the appellant. He argued that the eye witness Parmanand (PW-15) has categorically deposed the trustworthy evidence against the appellant Manna Lal. Since Rajesh Meena is co-accused in the instant incident and he was charge-sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota, Rajesh Meena has not been examined by the prosecution for obvious reasons. 15. In cross examination, the witnesses of defence have admitted that village of the appellant's in-laws is only 35 Kms. Since Rajesh Meena is co-accused in the instant incident and he was charge-sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota, Rajesh Meena has not been examined by the prosecution for obvious reasons. 15. In cross examination, the witnesses of defence have admitted that village of the appellant's in-laws is only 35 Kms. away from the place of incident. Therefore, it is not believable that the appellant Manna Lal's presence at material point of time at the place of occurrence is impossible. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor submit that the trial court, after critically examining and analysing the evidence adduced by prosecution has come to right conclusion that the appellant is culprit of the offence charged against him. As such, there are no reasons to set aside the findings of the learned trial court. 17. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and thoroughly perused the material available on record. 18. Dr. Gangadhar Mittal (PW-23) deposed that on postmortem, he found following injuries ante-mortem : (i) Incised wound 10cm x 2 cm x 4 cm T/D below thyroid cartilage. (ii) Incised wound 12cm x 3" x bony deep. From left eye outer side to face, extending left ear. Upper ? of ear completely incised. (iii) Incised wound 6cm x 4cm x bony deep upper side of neck below angle of mandible horizontal vertebra joint between III and IV cervical vertebra carotid artery and suclavin vein incised, muscle of neck incised. (iv) Incised wound 4cm x 3cm x bony deep located on left side of neck, just below maslold process T/D. (v) Incised wound left index, ring and little finger 2cm x 1cm on external surface of proximal pholyx of left, ring and middle of hand. All face and neck were soaked with blood. ½ upper part of left ear was cut. The death occurred due to shock due to excessive haemorrhage from injury of neck which was sufficient to cause death. The postmortem was conducted on 13.9.2006 at 8.30 to 9.30 AM and death was occurred 5 to 6 hours prior to autopsy. Postmortem report is Ex.P-50. 19. In cross examination, he has ruled out the possibility that deceased could be saved if the haemorrhage could be checked timely. There is nothing on record so as to disbelieve the testimony of Dr. Gangadhar Mittal (PW-23). Postmortem report is Ex.P-50. 19. In cross examination, he has ruled out the possibility that deceased could be saved if the haemorrhage could be checked timely. There is nothing on record so as to disbelieve the testimony of Dr. Gangadhar Mittal (PW-23). Photographs (Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-44) of the dead body and site of the crime were snapped by Jagdish (PW-22). Memo of inquest of the dead body (Ex.P-2), memo of site of crime inspection (Ex.P-3), memo of Photography (Ex.P-5) and (Ex.P- 6) have been proved by attesting witnesses - Morpal (PW 3) and Durgalal (PW-6). Nothing has cropped up in cross examination of these witnesses which may lead to disbelieve that on 13.9.2006 at about 4.30 AM to 5.30 AM, the deceased Suresh was intentionally killed by some lethal weapon. Therefore, homicide amounting to murder of Suresh is well proved by the evidence. Now it is to see as to whether the appellant Manna Lal committed this ghastly crime. 20. As per prosecution story Shreelal (PW-7) and Parmanand (PW-15) were eye witnesses of the incident. Shreelal (PW-7) has turned hostile and does not give any ocular testimony of the incident. Parmanand (PW-15) a resident of village Kolhukhera, has stated that he had gone to village Bardawada to meet his daughter. After taking meal, he halted there in the house of Shreelal, father-in-law of his daughter. At about 4-5 O'clock in the morning, he woke up and went towards Chandwardi for getting fresh. When he was getting fresh, heard some sound. He gave a call and saw that son of Gangaram was lying down there and Manna Lal was standing holding a sword in hand. He fled away towards Chandbardi. Besides Manna Lal, Raju was also there. Raju fled away towards village. Shreelal was accompanying the witness. Suresh was assaulted by sword, causing injury on the neck. He and Shreelal tried to intervene, then accused fled away. Suresh was died, later on. Ganga Ram and others reached thereafter. People who came there, rushed towards Chandwardi village. Witness and Shreelal came back later on. In cross examination, he said that her daughter has been married with Gopal S/o Shri Jodh Raj and as such Gopal is father-in-law of his daughter. He admits that no son or daughter of Shreelal has been married in his family. He further admitted that he did not halt in the night at house of his daughter. In cross examination, he said that her daughter has been married with Gopal S/o Shri Jodh Raj and as such Gopal is father-in-law of his daughter. He admits that no son or daughter of Shreelal has been married in his family. He further admitted that he did not halt in the night at house of his daughter. He did not meet his daughter on the day of incident. He stated that police had recorded his statement after 2-3 days. He admitted that before police reached the site of crime, he left for his village. He admitted that there was dark and in darkness, the assailants fled away here and there. The witness has been confronted with the statement (Ex.D-3) recorded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has changed his version time and again. Not only he has improved his version, but also he has flickered in his statement recorded in the court. At one place, he stated that he had halted in the night at his daughter's house and at other place he states that he had halted at the house of Shreelal, who is not in-law of any of his family member. It is strange that a person goes to meet her daughter and halts in the night in the house of some other person. Not only this, he has stated in examination in chief that name of father-in law of his daughter is Shreelal, whereas in cross examination, he states that name of father-in-law of his daughter is Gopal. In cross examination, this witness admitted that Ganga Ram and 20-25 persons from Bardawada village had come on site of crime. He admitted that he also saw blood battled persons of the village Bardawada. This witness has accepted that the complainant of the instant matter Ganga Ram is brother of Gopal, who, in turn, is father-in-law of his daughter Manbhari. Interest of this witness in the complainant is obvious. Flickering, improved and contradictory statement make the testimony of this witness in credible and his presence at the site of crime as eye witness, by chance is also shrouded with many doubts. 21. Ganga Ram (PW-1), the complainant has stated that when he reached near dead body of son, he found Parmanand and Shreelal there and they told him that Rajesh and Manna Lal have butchered Suresh by sword and fled away. 21. Ganga Ram (PW-1), the complainant has stated that when he reached near dead body of son, he found Parmanand and Shreelal there and they told him that Rajesh and Manna Lal have butchered Suresh by sword and fled away. After seeing the dead body, Phoolchand went to police and thereupon police came there. In cross examination, he clearly said that Phoolchand went to police station and only he brought police. Phoolchand had reached the site along with this witness. He admitted that he had an enmity with Manna Lal in the context of land. This witness was confronted with the report (Ex.P-1), wherein it has not been mentioned that Parmanand and Shreelal told this witness at the spot that Rajesh and Manna Lal have butchered Suresh by sword. In cross examination, he refused it to be true that on the same day, he along with 18 other persons of his village went to Chandwardi but later on, admitted that Mahendra Kumar of Chandwardi had registered an information in police against witness, Hajari Lal, Morpal, Ram Swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu and 8-10 other persons. He admits that people of his village had inflicted injuries on Mahendra, Ram Pratap and his family members. This witness denied that he had doubt that Ram Pratap Mali killed his son. He also denied that villagers had assaulted with gun but admits that an injury of gun shot was inflicted on Ram Swaroop and he was taken for treatment to Baran. 22. Phoolchand has not been examined by the prosecution. Hajari Lal (PW-8), brother of complainant Ganga Ram, has stated that when police came, then he rushed. Later on, he states that Raju came and informed that Suresh has been butchered, whereupon, he rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of Suresh lying on ground. Nobody else was there. Nevertheless, this witness states that he saw Manna Lal fleeing away from the site. When he was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D-1), he said that he had told police about seeing Manna Lal fleeing away but he does not know why police not recorded this thing. 23. Thus, both the alleged eye witnesses, adduced by the prosecution, are not deposing coherent, credible, natural and trustworthy testimony. Shreelal has turned hostile. The other eye witness Parmanand (PW-15) is found not trustworthy and his presence by chance is also doubtful. 24. 23. Thus, both the alleged eye witnesses, adduced by the prosecution, are not deposing coherent, credible, natural and trustworthy testimony. Shreelal has turned hostile. The other eye witness Parmanand (PW-15) is found not trustworthy and his presence by chance is also doubtful. 24. As per prosecution story, a sword stained with blood was recovered from the house of appellant Manna Lal but on examination, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, in his report (Ex.P-51), did not find any human blood on the sword. On the other hand, attesting witness of memo of site of crime inspection (Ex.P-3), Morpal (PW-3) stated that police had collected a sword while inspecting the site of crime in his presence. This witness has not been declared hostile. The prosecution did not submit any explanation about the sword, which was collected from the site of crime. Story of the defence is that the sword - weapon of the offence, was collected from site of the crime itself by police and later on, police has implanted it as recovered at the instance of the appellant from his possession. 25. Appellant Manna Lal was arrested on 15.9.2006. At that time, on search, he was found wearing pent and shirt stained with blood. Police seized these clothes of the appellant vide memo (Ex.P-15) in presence Ram Sevak ASI and Anil Singh constable. Both these witnesses are police personnel. Why an independent witness could not be procured - get no explanation from the prosecution. It is quite unnatural that an educated person, like the appellant, would continue to put on the clothes for, as long as, two days stained with blood, knowingly that he may be apprehended by police at any time. As per FSL report (Ex.P-51), the seized clothes of the appellant were found to have human blood of the group, that of the blood of the deceased. Prosecution did not adduce any evidence that appellant does not have the same blood group. It is quite possible that the appellant may also have the blood group which was of the blood of deceased. In such situation, this sort of evidence cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance against the accused. 26. FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5) was registered on 14.9.2006 on the basis of Parcha Bayan recorded by police on 13.9.2006 at about 11.30 AM at Government Hospital, Baran. In such situation, this sort of evidence cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance against the accused. 26. FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5) was registered on 14.9.2006 on the basis of Parcha Bayan recorded by police on 13.9.2006 at about 11.30 AM at Government Hospital, Baran. In Parcha Bayan, complainant Ram Swaroop has informed the police on 13.9.2006 at 11.30 AM that Rajesh informed him that Ram Pratap S/o Shri Laxman Mali, R/o Chandwardi has beaten the complainant's nephew Suresh whereupon, due to injury on neck, he has died. FIR No.283/2006 (Ex.D-4) was registered on the information of complainant Mahendra Kumar Mali against Hajari Lal, Ganga Ram, Morpal, Ram swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu and 8-10 other persons of Bardawada village. In this report, on 13.9.2006 at about 1.00 PM, Mahenda Kumar Mali, the complainant reported that persons against whom the report had been filed, attacked, abused and said that Ram Pratap has killed their Suresh and started beating with various weapons. It is noteworthy that persons against whom FIR No.283/2006 (Ex.D-4) was registered are mostly the persons, who are witnesses in the instant matter on behalf of prosecution. On perusal of FIRs (Ex. D-4 and Ex.D-5), it reveals that immediate after seeing the deceased killed, Ganga Ram (PW-1) accompanied by other villagers may have gone to village Chandbardi and attacked Ram Swaroop and others saying that Ram Pratap killed his son Suresh. Prosecution has failed to explain how this anomaly regarding assailant of the deceased crop up. After due investigation, what result was arrived at by police in the matters of FIRs - Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5. In absence of any explanation, story of the defence in the instant matter that appellant Manna Lal is not actual culprit and he was, in fact, at his in-laws village at the time of occurrence may have some truth. Prosecution has examined Sadhna Bhagwat (PW-13), Animeshpal (PW- 14), Parmanand Meena (PW-17) and Parmanand Gurjar (PW- 18) to prove the enmity due to which the appellant Manna Lal killed Suresh. But none of these witnesses said anything as such and they have turned hostile. Ganga Ram (PW-1) stated in cross examination that there was a dispute with regard to land with appellant Manna Lal and for this, there was an enmity but none of the prosecution witnesses has corroborated any such fact. But none of these witnesses said anything as such and they have turned hostile. Ganga Ram (PW-1) stated in cross examination that there was a dispute with regard to land with appellant Manna Lal and for this, there was an enmity but none of the prosecution witnesses has corroborated any such fact. Thus, we find no evidence available about motive for which appellant Manna Lal would have killed Suresh. The Supreme Court in Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati's case (supra) observed that when evidence of eye witnesses have been found totally unacceptable, presence of motive and recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence at the instance of accused are wholly insufficient for sustaining charge of murder. In the instant matter, evidence of the eye witnesses have been found totally unacceptable and motive is altogether lacking. Recoveries of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence, are also not sufficient to prove the charge levelled against the appellant. 27. We find that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in correct and legal perspective. Factual metrix as adduced by the prosecution has not been minutely scrutinized. Thus, the findings given by the learned trial court cannot be sustained. 28. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant Manna Lal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.10.2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 29. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Manna Lal is directed to forthwith furnish a person 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 to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.