JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1989 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Hamirpur, in Special Case No.137 of 1986, State Vs. Jagram and others, arising out of Case Crime No.23 of 1986, under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 411 IPC, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur whereby appellant no.1 Jagram has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC, whereas, appellant no.2 Patak Singh has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC. Sentences awarded against appellant no.1 Jagram have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It is noteworthy that in this case appellant no.2, Patak Singh was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC, which sentence he has suffered in its entirety and has remained in jail for 3 years, 8 months and 12 days. In the wake of above, he is not in custody at present. 3. Heard Sri B. Mallik, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for appellant no.1, Jagram and Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the appellant no.2, Patak Singh, Sri Saghir Ahmad and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record. 4. Facts giving rise to this appeal discernible from the record appear to be; that some written report was given at Police Station Maudaha on 02.02.1986 at 3:30 p.m. by the informant Lallu Ram son of Ram Sanehi, resident of Village Bhaista, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamipur, regarding recovery of some dead body, with allegations that herdsman Jai Karan son of Kandhi Yadav and some boys had taken their cattle for grazing in the morning on 02.02.1986 at Banjar near culvert of Pavar and some dead body was lying in the drain under Neem tree located towards eastern side of chak of Baiju. The dead body was stinking. There were Khaki clothes on the dead body. The dead body was not identifiable. A number of persons saw the dead body but could not identify the same. The information was given for taking appropriate action. 5. The dead body was stinking. There were Khaki clothes on the dead body. The dead body was not identifiable. A number of persons saw the dead body but could not identify the same. The information was given for taking appropriate action. 5. The contents of the aforesaid written report were taken down in the concerned check FIR at Case Crime No.23 of 1986, under Sections 302, 201 IPC on 02.02.1986 at 03:30 p.m. Report was lodged against known persons. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-4. On the basis of aforesaid entry made in the Check FIR, a case was also registered at concerned general diary entry no.19 at 03:30 hours at the same case crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC. 6. Thereafter, the investigation took place. Inquest of the dead body was held on 02.02.1986. It commenced at 05:15 p.m. and completed at 06:00 p.m. the same day. Inquest report is Ext. Ka-9. Relevant papers were prepared for sending the dead body for autopsy. Relevant papers are in the form of photonash Ext. Ka-7, and challan dead body, police form no.13 Ext. Ka-8. Thereafter the dead body was sent for autopsy at mortuary Hamirpur. 7. Record divulges that the post mortem examination of the recovered dead body was conducted by Dr. I.D. Mishra, at 3:30 p.m. on 03.02.1986 in the mortuary at Hamirpur. Approximate time from death up to the time of post mortem examination was calculated between 3 to 5 days. Since the dead body had suffered decomposition, the doctor has noted in the post mortem examination report that no external mark of injury was seen over dead body. On front of right forearm, there was tattooed picture of Lord Shiva and illegible writing probably name had also surfaced. Cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. This post mortem examination report was since admitted to the defence, there fore, its formal proof was dispensed with and the same was marked as Ext. Ka-6. 8. We also come across fact that on 01.02.1986, a written report/application was moved by Shiv Prasad son of Mewa Lal. Cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. This post mortem examination report was since admitted to the defence, there fore, its formal proof was dispensed with and the same was marked as Ext. Ka-6. 8. We also come across fact that on 01.02.1986, a written report/application was moved by Shiv Prasad son of Mewa Lal. Reference of which finds mention at Report No.15 at 12:50 hours of general diary at Police Station Kotwali, District Hamirpur, wherein it was stated that Rajjan Lal son of Shiv Prasad, who was driver in the office of the Additional District Magistrate (Project) Hamirpur, had gone to Rath on 15.01.1986 and came back to Headquarter for official work on 21.01.1986 and thereafter, his traces were not known. When inquiry was made, it transpired that Rajjan Lal was not available at home then search was carried out for his whereabouts, but nothing fructified. Some description of physique and personality traits were also given in the application, wherein, it was stated that his age is around 28-30 years. On the basis of this report, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Hamipur. 9. We also gather from record that after recovery of dead body, the same was identified by Asha Devi wife of the deceased Rajjan Lal. She told during interrogation that her husband used to keep with himself one transistor and one watch. 10. We further come across fact through record that on 08.08.1986, after apprehension of the accused Jagram, his statement was recorded by the police wherein he stated that he had given the looted transistor to his relative Patak Singh, resident of Village Chhibauli, Police Station Jariya, whereupon S.I. Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 who was the then Station House Officer of Police Station Maudaha went to the residential place of Patak Singh at Chhibauli when Patak Singh was sighted sitting in front of his house and was found keeping one transistor with him. He was apprehended and when asked about source of transistor as to from where he got it or to show any receipt for the transistor, he could not account for the same instead he replied that the transistor was given to him by his relative. Memo of recovery was prepared on the spot after sealing the recovered transistor in a cloth. Recovery memo of transistor is Ext.1. Memo of recovery was prepared on the spot after sealing the recovered transistor in a cloth. Recovery memo of transistor is Ext.1. This transistor has been identified by Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 as material Ext.1. 11. Accused Patak Singh was also arrested and brought to the police station and detained in the lock up. The transistor was kept in safe custody in police Malkhana. The identification process of transistor was conducted on 05.09.1986 under supervision of M.P. Singh Awasthi PW-6, the then Special Magistrate, Hamirpur. He prepared a memo of identification as Ext. Ka-2. 12. The investigation proceeded further and statements of various persons were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The clothes of the deceased were also identified by witnesses during identification. The Investigating Officer prepared map of the site plan of place of recovery of the dead body which is Ext. Ka-5 on record. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of accused Jagram and Kallu who had been arrested in connection with some other case pertaining to Sections 394 and 302 IPC. 13. In his confessional statement, accused Jagram had confessed to have committed crime in collusion with one Kallu after the deceased had hired his rickshaw at Pawar Nala and robed the deceased of his watch, transistor and Rs.65/- cash, in a deserted place. When the deceased told the miscreants that he has identified them and he is a driver of the District Magistrate then both the accused killed him after strangulating him by tying his neck with 'Gamchha'. When the deceased had died, his dead body was thrown in Nala (drain). The booty was divided between the two accused. Jagram took transistor and Kallu took watch, whereas, Rs.65/- was divided equally between the two. It was also stated by the accused Jagram that transistor had been handed over by him to his relative Patak Singh, resident of village Chhibauli, Police Station Jariya. Accused Kallu had also confessed that he had sold out watch to some unknown person. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons which is Ext. Ka-11 on record. 14. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, it was committed to it where the case was numbered as Special Case No.137 of 1986 under Sections 394, 302, 201, 411 IPC and was tried by the Special Court (Dacoity Affected Area) at Hamirpur. Ka-11 on record. 14. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, it was committed to it where the case was numbered as Special Case No.137 of 1986 under Sections 394, 302, 201, 411 IPC and was tried by the Special Court (Dacoity Affected Area) at Hamirpur. Accused persons and the prosecution were heard on the point of charge. Accused Jagram was charged under Sections 394, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, whereas, accused Patak Singh was charged under Section 411 IPC for retaining stolen property (transistor). Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who abjured charges and claimed to be tried. 15. In the process, the prosecution was required to adduce its testimony in order to prove guilt of the accused, whereupon the prosecution produced in all six witnesses. 16. Noteworthy in this case is fact that contents of most of the prosecution papers Ext. Ka-3 to Ext. Ka-11 had been desired by the defence to be dispensed with formal proof and an endorsement to that effect had been appended on their behalf on these papers. Therefore, the trial court instead of requiring the same to be proved by the agency of prosecution witnesses, exhibited these papers and taken note of these papers as such. 17. Asha Devi PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. She has stated about fact that she had gone to her uncle's house on the occasion of some 'Triyodas' on 16.01.1986. Maan Singh PW-2 is witness of fact of recovery of transistor from the accused Patak Singh and he has described about the same. Similarly, Ram Kripal PW-3 is witness of recovery like PW-2. Lakhan Lal PW-4 is also witness of recovery of fact of transistor like the aforesaid two witnesses. Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 is the Investigating Officer and has worked out recovery of transistor from Patak Singh and has basically proved the process. M.P. Awasthi PW-6 is the Special Magistrate who conducted identification process of transistor before the witnesses and has proved preparation of identification memo as Ext. Ka-2. 18. Except as above, no other evidence, whatsoever, was adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein nothing specific was stated apart from denying the claim of the prosecution and it was stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 19. Ka-2. 18. Except as above, no other evidence, whatsoever, was adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein nothing specific was stated apart from denying the claim of the prosecution and it was stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 19. No sort of testimony was adduced by the defence. Therefore, case was posted for arguments by both the sides. 20. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides on merits and considering the material on record returned finding of conviction against the accused Jagram and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC, whereas, appellant no.2 Patak Singh has been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC, vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.1989. Another coaccused Kallu was acquitted of all charges. 21. The aforesaid conviction and sentence against the accused-appellants became the cause for preferring this appeal by the two appellants. 22. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that this case is based on no evidence. There is no worthy evidence which could connect the accused-appellants with commission of the offence. It is purely a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no clinching evidence against the accused Jagram that he was ever spotted on or around the spot from where the dead body was recovered at the relevant point of time when the offence was committed. 23. It has been further contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that the dead body was recovered on 02.02.1986 and the first information report was lodged against known persons at 3:30 p.m., whereas, inquest was completed at 6:00 p.m. the same day. From then onwards up to 08.08.1986, there was no whisper as to who committed crime and in what manner, but the police after roping in falsely Jagram in some another false case of loot and murder, fraudulently posed case of obtaining some confessional statement of accused Jagram connecting him with this crime. Apart from that confessional statement, there is no worthy evidence against the accused9 appellants. No recovery has been effectuated from the accused Jagram. Apart from that confessional statement, there is no worthy evidence against the accused9 appellants. No recovery has been effectuated from the accused Jagram. On the same piece of evidence, one coaccused Kallu, who was stated to have retained looted watch from the deceased, has already been acquitted by the trial court. Recovery of transistor from accused Patak Singh on the whole indicates most casual style in which the police worked out a case for falsely implicating an innocent person branding him as an accused like the present one. 24. It has further been contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that recovery (of transistor) on the whole has not been supported by recovery witnesses (PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-4). Copy of recovery memo was neither handed over to the accused Patak Singh nor was it prepared on the spot. No transistor was recovered from the accused Patak Singh. There is no particular description of transistor, its make, design, colour etc. Such transistor can be imputed against any person at any time. The transistor was without any cell. 25. It has further been contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that it is farcical, under circumstances, that at the relevant point of time when the police party along with the witnesses reached at the house of Patak Singh, he was holding the transistor without cell in his hand. A question may be asked for what purpose, he was holding transistor in his hand when it was without cell, just to show that he possessed transistor. Even the wife of the deceased could not spell out specification of identifiable marks of transistor and its make and fact as to from where it was bought and how much did it cost. The total ignorance of the aforesaid facts regarding identifiable traits of transistor generates doubt on the recovery itself. Therefore, absence of description pertaining to determinative marks of transistor is prone to raising question mark on fact of identify ability of the transistor it self and it could not have been identified even by the wife of the deceased when she herself is unable to describe any specific mark of transistor. 26. It has further been contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that recovery memo Ext. 26. It has further been contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 prepared by S.I. Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 itself manifests truth that copy whereof was never handed over to the accused Patak Singh, therefore, fact of recovery is legally not sustainable and cannot be read against the accused Patak Singh. Recovery of transistor by itself will not prove and establish the various facts and circumstances of this case in such consistent manner that it would form a complete chain in itself, thus alluding to inference against the accused Jagram that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime to the exclusion of all others. The trial court, while appreciating merit of the case, failed to evaluate evidence, facts and circumstances in the right perspective and it adopted whimsical approach and illegally convicted the accused-appellants and awarded sentence against them. 27. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that it is a case of its own nature where things are scattered and of anonymous nature because no trace of culprit was known till arrest of the accused Jagram and Kallu. It was only after their arrest was effectuated in some another case, and some disclosure statement in form of confession was obtained by the police from accused Jagram and Kallu wherefrorm it divulged that murder of Rajjan Lal was committed by the accused Jagram and property was looted in the commission of the offence and it was distributed among the culprits and one transistor was given by Jagram to accused Patak Singh. This particular aspect of the case has been cogently and consistently proved by the prosecution. 28. Learned AGA has further submitted that recovery of transistor has been sufficiently proved by the Special Magistrate PW-6 whose testimony is unblemished. It being circumstantial evidence, there cannot be eye account testimony of the incident. Recovery of transistor pursuant to the information given by the accused Jagram is in itself indicative of his inalienable involvement in the commission of the crime. How he (Jagram) obtained transistor of the deceased, cannot be explained otherwise. The learned trial court while appreciating merit of the case was impressed by consistency of the aforesaid facts and proof of the same, therefore, rightly recorded conviction and awarded just sentence against the accused-appellants. 29. We have also considered the aforesaid rival submissions and also claim of the accused-appellants visa- vis claim of the prosecution. The learned trial court while appreciating merit of the case was impressed by consistency of the aforesaid facts and proof of the same, therefore, rightly recorded conviction and awarded just sentence against the accused-appellants. 29. We have also considered the aforesaid rival submissions and also claim of the accused-appellants visa- vis claim of the prosecution. The moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to the fact whether fact of recovery of transistor from Patak Singh has been reasonably proved by the prosecution witnesses and their testimony inspire confidence and whether the prosecution has been able prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all counts? 30. Obviously, it is a case where no one saw the actual occurrence of murder and the law machinery was put into action by lodging of the first information report (Ext. Ka-4) by the informant Lallu Ram son of Ram Sanehi on 02.02.1986 at Police Station Maudaha to the effect that some stinking dead body was lying to the eastern chak of Baiju under Neem tree and the dead body is unidentifiable. Inquest was held the very same day around 5:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. 31. Here it is worth observation that no mark of external injury was seen over dead body by the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body on 03.02.1986. It has also been claimed by the prosecution that at the time of preparation of inquest report, information somehow reached to the wife of the deceased, Asha Devi PW-1 who is stated to have identified the dead body as that of Rajjan Lal. But it is quite surprising that in the inquest report Ext. Ka-9 and post mortem examination report Ext. Ka-6, there is no mention of any name. The post mortem examination report mentions person whose autopsy was conducted as 'unknown Hindu male', whereas, inquest report Ext. Ka-9 mentions that person as unknown, aged 35 years. Therefore, claim of the prosecution that the dead body was identified as that of Rajjan Lal cannot be said to be exactly the dead body of the deceased Rajjan Lal. The post mortem examination report mentions person whose autopsy was conducted as 'unknown Hindu male', whereas, inquest report Ext. Ka-9 mentions that person as unknown, aged 35 years. Therefore, claim of the prosecution that the dead body was identified as that of Rajjan Lal cannot be said to be exactly the dead body of the deceased Rajjan Lal. In view of such apparent fact, claim of Asha Devi PW-1 that she identified the dead body appears to be an afterthought with a view to pave way for material improvement to be utilized by the prosecution witness by stating before the trial court that the dead body was identified either at the time of inquest or at the time of conduction of post mortem examination. But non mention of name of Rajjan Lal on the post mortem examination report belies such claim. 32. Asha Devi PW-1 on page 16 of the paper-book in her examination in chief has testified to the extent that she herself went to the mortuary at Hamirpur where she identified dead body of her husband Rajjan Lal. Therefore, claim of the prosecution that the dead body was identified by PW-1 at that point of time is not acceptable and claim appears to be a deliberate improvement and testimony forthcoming in that regard is flash of embellishment. 33. Assuming it to be that the dead body so recovered was that of Rajjan Lal then we can also scrutinize one particular aspect of this case which relates to particular fact that at the time of disclosure statement (in form of confession) made by the accused Jagram, he had stated that he strangulated to death deceased Rajjan Lal by 'Gamchha' but post mortem examination report dated 03.02.1986 prepared by Dr. I.D. Mishra enumerates cause of death in style that cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera preserved. How and why the specific cause of death disclosed by the accused Jagram could not be traced by the doctor at the time of autopsy, if the body recovered was that of Rajjan Lal. 34. It is obvious that the dead body which was recovered on 02.02.1986 and the fact of recovery of dead body was reported at Police Station Maudaha by the informant Lallu Ram son of Ram Sanehi, cannot be said to be the dead body to that of Rajjan Lal. 34. It is obvious that the dead body which was recovered on 02.02.1986 and the fact of recovery of dead body was reported at Police Station Maudaha by the informant Lallu Ram son of Ram Sanehi, cannot be said to be the dead body to that of Rajjan Lal. Had it been so, cause of death could have been spelt as due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. But here cause of death in the case of the present dead body, is altogether missing, therefore, viscera was preserved. No further report has been placed on record which could substantiate claim of any homicidal death of a person whose post mortem examination was conducted on 03.02.1986 at 3:30 p.m. by Dr. I.D. Mishra in the mortuary at Hamirpur. This post mortem examination report no.12/86 is on record and the same was exhibited- Ka-6 before the trial court. 35. It appears that the dead body itself was not identifiable and it was in fact not identified by anybody. Had there been any identification from any source at least, a note confirming to the same must have been appended on the relevant paper – say inquest report or the post mortem examination report (Exhibit-Ka-6). Thus, at the very initial stage of this case, it cannot be said that accused Jagram was ever involved in committing murder of Rajjan Lal whose dead body was in fact recovered and identified as such. Therefore, the claim made in this regard by the prosecution that the dead body recovered was that of Rajjan Lal is fraught with hollowness. 36. Now insofar as the other vital aspect of this case is concerned, we have before us recovery of transistor made from another co-accused Patak Singh on 08.08.1986. He is not the offender of principal category but he is stated to have received the looted transistor from accused Jagram. 37. On careful perusal of testimony of Asha Devi PW-1, we come across fact that no identifiable mark, whatsoever, had been spelt by this witness so as to give any definite and concrete shape to the transistor. It is highly surprising that this witness who had described about the transistor, could not spell even length and breadth of the transistor. 37. On careful perusal of testimony of Asha Devi PW-1, we come across fact that no identifiable mark, whatsoever, had been spelt by this witness so as to give any definite and concrete shape to the transistor. It is highly surprising that this witness who had described about the transistor, could not spell even length and breadth of the transistor. This very inability on the part of PW-1 to reflect on size of transistor, is more than sufficient to take us to infer conclusively that theory of recovery of transistor has been devised by the concerned police as a means to falsely implicate some innocent person, at will. 38. Now we come to the factum of recovery of transistor on 08.08.1986 without going into other ancillary detail. Certain things are apparent on record. Recovery memo of transistor Ext. Ka-1 was prepared by S.I. Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 on 08.08.1986 in front of the house of Patak Singh in Village Chhibauli, Police Station Jariya, does not contain any description that any copy of this recovery memo was ever handed over to the accused Patak Singh, instead it contained description in the last line, as it was on page 4 of the paper-book, that the accused was asked to put his signature on this recovery memo, but he refused to make any endorsement. But there is no whisper in this memo that any copy of this memo (Exhibit Ka-1) was ever handed over to the accused Patak Singh. Therefore, bald statement of S.I. Krishna Kant Dwivedi PW-5 that copy of recovery memo was handed over to the accused would not serve legal obligation and will be read against the prosecution that no copy of recovery memo was handed over to the accused Patak Singh. 39. Further, we come across fact that recovery witnesses are three in number. They are Maan Singh PW-2, Ram Kripal PW-3 and Lakhan Lal PW-4. They have not supported consistently the factum of recovery. Maan Singh PW-2 says in his testimony that this recovery memo of transistor was never read over to him. It means that legal mandatory requirement was not met by the Investigating Officer while effectuating recovery, therefore, his testimony is not of any assistance to the prosecution. Similar is the case with another recovery witness Ram Kripal PW-3. Maan Singh PW-2 says in his testimony that this recovery memo of transistor was never read over to him. It means that legal mandatory requirement was not met by the Investigating Officer while effectuating recovery, therefore, his testimony is not of any assistance to the prosecution. Similar is the case with another recovery witness Ram Kripal PW-3. He had, out and out, denied factum of any recovery having been made from the accused Patak Singh and fact that he ever saw the accused Patak Singh sitting in front of his house. Likewise PW-2, he has also stated that recovery memo was never read over to him, therefore, his testimony, too, becomes oblivious of legal teeth and does not give any strength to the prosecution claim qua recovery. Similar is the case with recovery witness namely Lakhan Lal PW-4. On page 36 of the paper-book in his cross examination, he has categorically testified to the extent that Daroga Ji had been in possession of the transistor as soon as he arrived on the spot. He was told by Daroga Ji that this transistor had been taken by him from the accused Patak Singh. On the same page, he has elaborated to the extent that he did not know about contents of the recovery memo as it was not read over to him. 40. Natural outcome of testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses of fact of recovery profusely, overwhelmingly and unambiguously establishes fact that there was no recovery of any sort, whatsoever, in the eye of law as claimed by the prosecution against the accused Patak Singh. Therefore, fact of recovery altogether fails and the same cannot be taken to have been proved within the four corners of law. We can conclude that factum of recovery of transistor vanishes into oblivion for aforesaid specific reason. 41. In the wake of above scrutiny, testimony of Special Magistrate, M.P. Awasthi PW-6 loses significance and need not be discussed any further, for the specific finding recorded by us regarding dubious factum of recovery which renders factum of recovery of transistor from accused Patak Singh untenable and unsustainable. 42. Base of recovery of transistor was direct outcome of the confessional statement made by the accused Jagram to the police and this recovery was pivotal and central point of the entire case. 42. Base of recovery of transistor was direct outcome of the confessional statement made by the accused Jagram to the police and this recovery was pivotal and central point of the entire case. But it can be conveniently visualized that recovery of transistor has not been established but the evidence brought forth for proving recovery has boomeranged and shattered the case of the prosecution. Once factum of recovery of transistor goes, it automatically closes room against accused Jagram being accused as well. He cannot be held guilty for committing loot and murder of Rajjan Lal and for causing disappearance of evidence. 43. Apart from above testimony of aforesaid witnesses from PW-1 to PW-6, there is no any other factual aspect, established circumstance or cogent testimony conceivable against both the accused-appellants so as to link them with the present crime. There is no any other independent proximate link of factual or circumstantial evidence which can guide us to infer any guilt against the accused-appellants. We are surprised as to how the trial court worked on such frivolous and filthy material collected during investigation which does not carry any iota of evidence or legal weight in itself. There is no perceptible substance in form of evidence - say legal, factual and circumstantial as a whole – against the accused-appellants which may imprint culpability of any sort, whatsoever. 44. Established judicial tenets and jurisprudential norms will hardly evoke any concrete response in the face of overall weak testimony brought on record by the prosecution. We after careful exercise of our discretion and after scrutinizing various aspects of this case do not find any sagacious reason to sustain finding of conviction and sentence awarded against both the accused by the trial court. 45. Learned trial Judge while evaluating evidence on record and appraising facts and circumstances of the case misread into evidence and circumstances and erroneously recorded finding of conviction and awarded sentence which finding of conviction and sentence is vitiated in the eye of law and the same, by no stretch of imagination, can be approved by us, and the same is liable to be set aside. The arguments extended on behalf of the accused-appellants carry force and deserve merit. Therefore, judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1989 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Hamirpur, in Special Case No.137 of 1986, State Vs. The arguments extended on behalf of the accused-appellants carry force and deserve merit. Therefore, judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1989 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Hamirpur, in Special Case No.137 of 1986, State Vs. Jagram and others, arising out of Case Crime No.23 of 1986, under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 411 IPC, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, is set aside. Consequently, the present appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of charges under Sections 394, 302, 201 and 411 IPC. 46. In this case, the appellant Jagram is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties bonds are discharged. He need not surrender in this case. 47. Insofar as in this case appellant no.2, Patak Singh is concerned, he has suffered sentence, imposed on him for charge under Section 411 IPC, in its entirety and has remained in jail for 3 years, 8 months and 12 days. 48. However, both the accused-appellants shall ensure mandatory compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. as early as possible. 49.Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below for necessary information and follow up action. ——————