Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Appellant herein is convict. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala has convicted him vide judgment dated 5.4.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 7/2011 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as fine. He has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the findings holding him guilty for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC are palpably erroneous and contrary to the facts of the case as well as evidence available on record. The allegations against him even if taken as it is, the same does not at all constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against him. The Court below allegedly completely lost sight of the fact that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and demolished its case, however, irrespective of it, the testimony of such witnesses was misunderstood and misappreciated and as a result thereof self contradictory and wrong findings came to be recorded. Learned trial Court has read the statements of witnesses in peace meal which is not legally permissible as their statements were required to be read as a whole i.e. exculpatory and inculpatory. Learned Court below has completely ignored and overlooked vital and important admissions made by the prosecution witnesses and as a result thereof, the appellant came to be convicted erroneously. The statements of the witnesses, if read as a whole, shatter the entire prosecution case. Without there being any evidence available on record, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against him. 2. If coming to the factual matrix as disclosed from the the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW-1/A), made by Jagdish Singh, the complainant (PW-1) they are three brothers. Elder one is Balbir Singh, accused herein whereas younger one was Jeevan Singh. All the three brothers are residing separately and the ancestral land stands partitioned amongst them by way of (khangi bant) family partition. The accused, however, was not satisfied with the partition of the ancestral property. Out of two ancestral houses, one in the partition was given to accused whereas one room of the other house was occupied by their mother (since dead) and one room had fallen in his share in the family partition. He and his younger brother Jeevan Singh had constructed their own houses also. Out of two ancestral houses, one in the partition was given to accused whereas one room of the other house was occupied by their mother (since dead) and one room had fallen in his share in the family partition. He and his younger brother Jeevan Singh had constructed their own houses also. After partition of the land, accused had been picking up quarrel with his mother, the deceased and not allowing her to speak to the complainant and Jeevan Singh aforesaid. 3. On 1.7.2009, around 8:30 PM, he was sitting on a cot with his mother the deceased in the verandah of the house. His wife Sandhya Devi (PW-2) was also present there whereas his daughter Aruna was in the courtyard of the house. The accused happened to come there and asked the deceased as to why she was speaking to the complainant party. On this, the deceased replied that all the three sons are equal to her and as such he had no authority to prevent her from talking to other two sons. This has enraged the accused and he at once hit his mother, the deceased with a broken piece (half piece) of brick in his hand which earlier did not come to the notice of the complainant and thereby hit the deceased on her head. The old and aged mother succumbed to the injury caused to her by the accused and fell unconscious. The head injury she received in the occurrence started bleeding. The accused fled away from the spot leaving behind the piece of brick. On noticing all this, PW-2 Sandhya Devi and Aruna, daughter of the complainant (PW-3) raised alarm. Their neighbour Baldev came to the spot along with his wife. They picked up the deceased from the verandah and made her to lie down in the room. He requested the neighbour to arrange for a vehicle so that the deceased could be taken to hospital and also to inform the police. However, his mother succumbed to the injury and died after some time of the occurrence well before she was taken to hospital for treatment. Therefore, it was reported by the complainant that his elder brother had killed the deceased due to land dispute. 4. On the information received in the Police Station, ASI Suresh Kumar PW-16 rushed to the spot. He noticed the dead body of old lady lying there. Therefore, it was reported by the complainant that his elder brother had killed the deceased due to land dispute. 4. On the information received in the Police Station, ASI Suresh Kumar PW-16 rushed to the spot. He noticed the dead body of old lady lying there. He passed on the information over telephone to Dy. Superintendent of Police and SHO concerned. He called Sanjeev, the photographer over telephone and recorded Ext. PW-1/A statement of Jagdish Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He made the endorsement Ext. PW-16/A on Ext. PW-1/A and rukka was sent through Const. Baldev, PS Jawali, District Kangra. The inquest papers Ext. PW-3/C were also prepared by him. Further investigation in the matter was conducted by PW-17 SI Lekh Ram. He entered rapat Rojnamcha Ext. PW-17/A and proceeded to the spot. He attested the inquest papers Ext. PW-3/C and prepared the map Ext. PW-17/B. The piece of brick Ext. P-2 was taken into possession by him vide recovery memo Ext. PW-3/B in the presence of Hem Raj (PW-3) and Pawan Kumar. One broken piece of brick was also taken into possession by him vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/B after preparing its ‘khakha’ Ext. PW-1/C. The spot was identified by the accused and identification memo Ext. PW-13/A was prepared in this regard. He has also prepared the spot map Ext. PW-17/C. Both pieces of bricks were sent to FSL from where report Ext. PX was received after analysis. He also received another chemical examiner’s report Ext. PY and on completion of the investigation prepared supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the completion of the investigation was prepared by PW-7 Insp. Parkash Chand and filed in the Court. 5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as defence counsel and on finding a prima-facie case under Section 302 IPC made out against the accused, framed charge against him accordingly. Since he pleaded not guilty to the charge, therefore, the prosecution in order to sustain charge against accused has examined 17 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses, however, are the complainant Jagdish Singh (PW-1), his wife Smt. Sandhya Devi (PW-2), Hem Raj (PW-3), Baldev Singh (PW- 4) and Roda Ram (PW-5). The rest of the witnesses are formal, mostly being the official witnesses. 6. The material prosecution witnesses, however, are the complainant Jagdish Singh (PW-1), his wife Smt. Sandhya Devi (PW-2), Hem Raj (PW-3), Baldev Singh (PW- 4) and Roda Ram (PW-5). The rest of the witnesses are formal, mostly being the official witnesses. 6. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the entire prosecution case either being wrong or for want of knowledge. In reply to question No. 29, his defence is that the criminal case under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506/34 IPC registered against the complainant and his wife at his instance is pending in the Court. The present case has been registered against him to take revenge. 7. Further plea, the accused raised in his defence which emerges on record from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is that on the fateful day, he came to call his mother to have food. The complainant, however, asked her not to have food with him. On this, he asked the complainant as to why he was not allowing the mother to have food with him. The complainant got enraged and picked up a brick to hit him, however, his mother had caught hold the hand of the complainant and that it is in this process, the brick struck against the head of the deceased. 8. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the material prosecution witnesses as aforesaid and the link evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the official witnesses and in complete departure to the plea raised by the accused in his defence, has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and consequently convicted him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine. 9. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate, learned counsel representing the appellant has vehemently argued that there is no iota of evidence to suggest the involvement of accused in the commission of offence. The trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence which is inconsistent and self contradictory. As a matter of fact, the evidence is not stated to be appreciated in its right perspective. The so called material witnesses have improved their previous version and some of them even turned hostile also to the prosecution. The trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence which is inconsistent and self contradictory. As a matter of fact, the evidence is not stated to be appreciated in its right perspective. The so called material witnesses have improved their previous version and some of them even turned hostile also to the prosecution. However, ignoring all this, learned trial Court has erroneously proceeded to hold the convict guilty of the alleged offence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused, and the impugned judgment being not legally sustainable may be quashed and accused acquitted of the charge framed against him. 10. On the other hand, Mr.M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment as according to him, the same is the result of proper appreciation of the facts of the case and evidence available on record. The manner in which the convict has killed his own mother stands duly proved from the evidence available on record. The convict allegedly has committed a ghastly act by killing his own mother with the piece of brick Ext. P-2. 11. The given facts and circumstances of this case discussed hereinabove and also the rival contentions casts an onerous duty on this Court to find out the truth by separating grain from the chef. In other words, it has to be determined that the facts of the case and the evidence available on record constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused or not. However, before coming to answer this poser, it is desirable to take note of legal provisions constituting an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A reference in this regard can be made to the provisions contained under Section 300 IPC. However, before coming to answer this poser, it is desirable to take note of legal provisions constituting an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A reference in this regard can be made to the provisions contained under Section 300 IPC. As per the Section ibid, culpable homicide is murder firstly if the offender is found to have acted with an intention to cause death or secondly with an intention of causing such bodily injury knowing fully well that the same is likely to cause death of someone or thirdly intention causing bodily injury to any person and such injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or if it is known to such person that the act done is imminently dangerous the same in all probability shall cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 12. Culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 IPC. Whoever causes death by way of an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death can be said to have committed the offence of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Expression “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degree. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment of Apex Court in Jagriti Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2869 . 13. The ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to murder therefore are; (i) causing death intentionally and (ii) causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Whether the present is a case where the evidence available on record is suggestive of that it is the accused who hit the deceased with a piece of brick Ext. P-2 intentionally to cause her death and such an act on his part amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or not, needs re-appraisal of the evidence available on record. Whether the present is a case where the evidence available on record is suggestive of that it is the accused who hit the deceased with a piece of brick Ext. P-2 intentionally to cause her death and such an act on his part amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or not, needs re-appraisal of the evidence available on record. However, before that it is deemed appropriate to point out that if the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased, the eye witness count of the occurrence may not be required, however, where the motive is missing, the prosecution is required to prove its case with the help of testimony of eye witnesses. 14. It is held so by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 175 of 2013 titled State of H.P. vs. Dalip Kumar decided on 1.3.2017. 15. Now, it is to be seen in the given facts and circumstances and also evidence available on record that the convict had intention to cause death of his own mother and that too on some land/property dispute. The very first version of PW-1 in his statement Ext. PW-1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. amply demonstrate that the bone of contention i.e. ancestral property stood already partitioned amongst the three brothers in a family partition. Not only this, all the three brothers were separate in mess also. The only complaint against the accused was that after partition, he started quarreling with his mother and on some occasion, even administered beatings to her. He was not allowing the deceased to speak to the complainant and Jeevan Singh his younger brother. However, while in the witness box, he had different story to tell as according to him, 9 kanals land belonging to them in the village was got entered by the accused in his name forcibly besides possession of 4 kanals of land, they had taken from Lambardarni, was also taken by him forcibly. The accused had been threatening the deceased to transfer the land in her share to him. This was nowhere the case of the prosecution in Ext. PW-1/A. This part of its case, as such, is pure and simple improvement to the earlier version. Above all, nothing has come either in Ext. PW-1/A or in the statement of the complainant PW-1 as to how much land was in the name of the deceased. This was nowhere the case of the prosecution in Ext. PW-1/A. This part of its case, as such, is pure and simple improvement to the earlier version. Above all, nothing has come either in Ext. PW-1/A or in the statement of the complainant PW-1 as to how much land was in the name of the deceased. Rather, as per his version, in old house, she was given one room for residential purposes in the family partition. Therefore, the allegation that the accused used to quarrel with his mother, due to land dispute, also does not appeal to be plausible. 16. The another aspect of the prosecution case that on 1.7.2009 when around 8:30 PM accused came to the house where his mother was sitting on a cot with the complainant whereas his Bhabhi (wife of the complainant) was present in the verandah and Aruna was in the courtyard, hit his mother with a brick he already had in his hand at a stage when she retaliated to his command not to speak with the complainant, has not been supported by the complainant and his wife as they both have come forward with entirely a different story that the accused came there and started hurling abuses on his mother. He asked her to transfer the land in his favour. She, however, refused to do so and rather told him that she would transfer the land in the name of her all three sons. It is on this score, the accused got enraged and hit the deceased on her head with a half piece of brick, which, he had already in his hand. It is seen that the statement, so made by the complainant and his wife, is altogether different to the one in Ext. PW-1/A which contains the very first version of the manner, in which, the occurrence had taken place. As per Ext. PW-1/A, the accused hit the head of his mother, the deceased at a stage, when on asking by him not to speak to the complainant and his family members, she has retaliated and told him that all the three sons are equal to her and he cannot prevent her from speaking to them. The material prosecution witnesses, as such, have thus contradicted themselves qua material aspect of the prosecution case. The material prosecution witnesses, as such, have thus contradicted themselves qua material aspect of the prosecution case. Therefore, their testimony, qua this aspect of the matter, is not only contradictory in nature but amounts to an improvement and discredits the entire prosecution story. In case, it is the accused, who had hit the deceased with the piece of brick, it is not understandable as to why PW-1 Jagdish Singh had picked up the same from the place where it was lying in the verandah and kept inside the house. No plausible explanation to this effect is forthcoming. Such act and conduct attributed to him amounts to screening of the evidence. 17. Now, if coming to the testimony of PW-1, he has denied the execution of Will by the deceased in favour of three sons whereas, as per the testimony of PW-5, Roda Ram, his Mausi, the deceased had executed a Will of her land in their favour. Meaning thereby that his ignorance qua attestation of mutation on the basis of the so called Will, is also an excuse to conceal the factual position from the Court. Had the accused been beating or quarreling with the deceased, it is not understandable as to why the matter was not reported to the police or Panchayat. PW-1 while in the witness-box has, denied the lodging of report against the accused. He has admitted that a criminal case is pending against him and his wife in the Judicial Court at Jawali. The same pertains to the beatings, they administered to accused Balbir Singh. 18. PW-2 Sandhya Devi, in her cross-examination, has denied the piece of brick having been picked up and taken inside the room by her husband before the arrival of the police. In this way, she had contradicted the version of her husband PW-1. She has also admitted the registration of criminal case against them which was regarding administering beatings by them to the accused. The reading of testimony of the complainant and his wife PW-2 Sandhya Devi, as a whole, render the prosecution story highly doubtful. The alleged motive attributed to the accused to kill his own mother is not proved at all. Learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 in its right perspective. They, both in the given facts and circumstances, seem to be liars and implicated the accused falsely in this case. 19. The alleged motive attributed to the accused to kill his own mother is not proved at all. Learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 in its right perspective. They, both in the given facts and circumstances, seem to be liars and implicated the accused falsely in this case. 19. PW-3 Hem Raj has allegedly witnessed the recovery of piece of brick Ext. P-2. His testimony also does not inspire confidence because according to him, he was called by the police at 7:45 PM on that day. When the occurrence, as per the prosecution case, has taken place at 8:30 PM, there was no occasion for this witness to have come to the house of the complainant at 7:45 PM. Interestingly enough, he has denied the suggestion that the police had conducted the investigation at the instance of the complainant Jagdish Singh. However, according to him, the investigation was conducted at the instance of Jeevan Singh. Such version of PW-3 also casts cloud on the prosecution story. He also seems to have not witnessed the investigation having taken place on the arrival of the police to the spot. 20. Now, if coming to the prosecution case that on hearing hue and cry raised by Sandhya Devi, PW-2 and Aruna PW-3, the wife and daughter of complainant, respectively, Baldev Singh PW-5 arrived at the spot with his wife, of course, stands proved from the testimony of PW-4 Baldev Singh. Not only this, but in Ext. PW-1/A also, this fact find recorded. As per his version in cross-examination, he had not seen as to who had hit the brick on the head of the old lady. If coming to his examination-in-chief, it is PW-1 Jagdish who had told him that the accused had given brick blow to his mother. Therefore, his testimony is hardly of any help to the vital aspect of the prosecution story that it is the accused who had hit the head of his mother with a brick Ext. P-2. If coming to his examination-in-chief, it is PW-1 Jagdish who had told him that the accused had given brick blow to his mother. Therefore, his testimony is hardly of any help to the vital aspect of the prosecution story that it is the accused who had hit the head of his mother with a brick Ext. P-2. His denial that in his presence the accused had handed over one piece of brick to the police by taking out from his room reveals that he had deposed falsely because, as per the own version of PW-1 Jagdish Singh, the piece of brick used by the accused for hitting his mother was picked up by him from the verandah and kept the same inside the room. The statement of PW-4 seems to be not of much help to the prosecution. 21. The deceased was aunt (mausi) of PW-5 Roda Ram. His testimony that the ‘shamlat land’ purchased by his Uncle was got entered by the accused in his name is contrary to the record of the case. Though, as per his version, the deceased intended to give the land in her name to all sons in equal shares and that due to this he had been picking up quarrel with her, however, his testimony to this effect is contrary to the first version of the occurrence which find mention in Ext. PW-1/A. He also seems to have deposed falsely to the reasons best known to him. 22. Now, if coming to the link evidence, there is no dispute so as to deceased received brick injury on her head and as a result thereof died after some time. Therefore, it is not desirable to elaborate the medical evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-8 Dr. Shiv Darshan Singh. No doubt, it was suggested to this witness that such injuries were possible by way of fall on a hard surface from considerable height, however, this is nobody’s case and as per the defence version also the brick struck against the head of the deceased at a stage when PW-1 complainant attempted to hit the accused therewith when the later asked the former as to why he is not allowing her to have food with him. 23. 23. The remaining witnesses are formal as SI Budhi Singh PW-6 who was posted in PS Jawali at the relevant time had registered the FIR PW-6/A on the receipt of rukka Ext. PW-1/A. PW- 7 Insp. Parkash Chand, the then SHO Police Station Jawali had prepared the Challan and filed the same in the Court. PW-9 Sanjeev Kumar is photographer who has taken photographs Ext. PA to PI and also proved the negatives thereof Ext. PJ. PW-10 Const. Kuldeep Singh has entered the rapat Ext. PW-10/A in the Rojnamcha and PW-11 Const. Baldeep Kumar had accompanied the I.O. PW-16 Suresh Kumar to the spot on receipt of the information qua the occurrence. He later on had taken rukka Ext. PW-1/A to the Police Station for registration of the case. PW-12 Const. Vijay had taken the FIR and delivered the same in the Court of JMIC Jawalia and to other superior police officers. In the presence of PW-13 HC Parmod, I.O. got identified the place from where the accused allegedly picked up the piece of brick. PW-14 Const. Sushil Kumar had taken the case property to FSL, whereas PW-15 HC Gurdeep was MHC posted in the Police Station at the relevant time. As already pointed out PW- 16 ASI Suresh Kumar and PW-17 SI Lekh Ram have investigated the case, however, when the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, the link evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the official witnesses, is hardly of any help to its case. 24. The reappraisal of the facts of this case and also the evidence available on record lead to the only conclusion that Smt. Parkasho Devi, mother of the complainant and accused has died on 1.7.2009 on account of head injury she suffered. It is, however, not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had hit her head with a piece of brick Ext. P-2 at a stage when she told him that all sons are equal to her and also challenged his authority to ask her not to speak with her other sons, is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The fight between the complainant and the accused rather seems to have taken place, may be on account of former did not allow his mother to accompany the latter to have food with him. The fight between the complainant and the accused rather seems to have taken place, may be on account of former did not allow his mother to accompany the latter to have food with him. It is just possible that PW-1 wanted to hit the accused with brick, however, their mother who was old lady came between them and sustained injury on her head and died after some time because as per own admission of PW-1 the complainant and his wife PW-2 Sandhya Devi, on earlier occasion also they had beaten up the accused and a criminal case in that regard was pending in the Court of JMIC Jawali. The prosecution, as such, has miserably failed to plead and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused alone and none else who had inflicted the blow of brick over the head of his mother and as a result thereof she died. Learned trial Court, as such, was not justified in recording the findings of conviction against the accused. The present, rather is a case where two possible views emerges on record from the appreciation of the evidence. In a case where two possible views of the matter can be taken, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Islam and others, (2011) 6 SCC 343 . The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows: “15. The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent.” Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal of the charge. 25. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC framed against him in this case. He is serving out sentence, hence be set free forthwith. 25. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC framed against him in this case. He is serving out sentence, hence be set free forthwith. The release warrants be prepared by the Registry accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of.