JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. We have heard Mr. M.A. Rathore, AAG. 2. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.12.2010, delivered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara. The case emanated from FIR No. 19/2007 registered in Police Station, Kupwara under Sections 302/120-B R.P.C. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Raj Mohammad Khan (PW-1), Numberdar of Village Manigah. The said Raj Mohammad Khan had reported that during the previous night a couple by the name of Shahzaman Khan son of Syed Rehman Khan and his wife Mst Fatima Jan were killed in the night intervening 31st of January and 1st of February, 2007 at Nageethha Manigah. The sum and substance of the case against the accused was that Shahzaman Khan was married to Mst Fatima Jan but they were issueless. Consequently, Shazaman Khan wanted to contract a second marriage with the idea of having children. It is alleged that accused Bashir Ahmad Khan arranged the second marriage with a Bengali lady and for his efforts in this direction; he took a sum of Rs. 20,000/25,000 from Shazaman Khan. However, the second marriage did not last very long as the Bengali lady is alleged to have left the matrimonial home after a period of one year and was not to be located. There was an allegation that there was a dispute with regard to the said sum of Rs. 20,000/25,000, which was the amount allegedly charged by the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan. It is also an allegation that accused Mir Qasim, who was the brother of deceased Shazaman Khan, had the motive of grabbing his property and, therefore, he along with Bashir Ahmad Khan and the other three accused, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Kataria, Shahzad Ahmad Kataria and Farooq Ahmad Moughal, hatched a conspiracy to do away with Shazaman Khan and his wife Mst Fatima Jan. It was the prosecution case that as a result of this conspiracy, Shazaman Khan was murdered in the night of 31st January, 2007 and that his body was found outside his house. Mst Fatima Jan was also murdered and her body was found inside the house. There were visible injuries on the person of Shazaman Khan and there were blood stains at the site from which the body was recovered. Mst Fatima Jan was also murdered and her body was found inside the house. There were visible injuries on the person of Shazaman Khan and there were blood stains at the site from which the body was recovered. Insofar Mst Fatima Jan is concerned, no injury was found on her body although there was an opinion that perhaps she was killed by strangulation. Anyhow, it is not in controversy that Shazaman Khan and Mst Fatima Jan both died unnatural deaths in the night of 31st of January, 2007. The question is as to who caused these deaths. 3. As many as 19 witnesses were examined on the part of the prosecution. Out of the 19 witnesses, 12 (PW 1 to PW12) were independent witnesses, PW 13 to PW 16 and PW-19 were police witnesses and PW 17 was the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and PW 18 was the scientist from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. It is alleged that disclosure statements were made by accused Bashir Ahmad Khan and Mir Qasim, but as noted by the trial Court, the same have not been proved. In fact, if one goes through the evidence of PW 1 to 12, it will be clear that the prosecution case has completely failed. 5. PW-1, Raj Mohammad Khan is the Numberdar at whose instance the FIR was registered. He himself got the information of the unnatural deaths of Shazaman Khan and Mst Fatima Jan from accused Mir Qasim, who was the brother of Shazaman Khan. This witness has stated that the alleged dispute between Bashir Ahmad Khan and Shahzaman Khan was not brought to his notice. Furthermore, he does not, in any way, implicate any of the accused either in his examination-in-chief or in his cross examination. In fact he has categorically stated in his cross examination that he had never seen the accused going to the house of the deceased and that he had not made any statement to the Police and to his knowledge there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. 6. Dawlat Jan (PW-2) wife of Syed Rehman Khan, who is the mother of the deceased Shahzaman Khan as also of the accused Mir Qasim, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 6. Dawlat Jan (PW-2) wife of Syed Rehman Khan, who is the mother of the deceased Shahzaman Khan as also of the accused Mir Qasim, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, she has clearly stated that her deceased son (Shahzaman Khan) did not have any dispute with any person nor with the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan and that she does not know as to who killed the couple. 7. PW-3 Juma Khan son of Mohammad Khan, Chowkidar of the village, in his cross examination clearly stated that, to his knowledge the accused had not hatched any conspiracy to kill the deceased. 8. Hassan Kataria (PW-4) son of Raj Mohmmad Kataria first of all stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased had no dispute with the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan and that the police had obtained his signatures on a blank paper to complete formalities. In his cross examination he had stated that the accused never quarreled with the deceased nor had any of the accused threatened the deceased and that no recovery was made by the Police in his presence. 9. PW-5, Jalal-ud-din Khan son of Abdul Rehman Khan stated that he was known to the accused as they were his neighbours and that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief he further stated that, to his knowledge the accused had never threatened the deceased and he was not in a position to say as to who committed the murders. In cross examination he further deposed that there was no quarrel between the accused Gulzar Kataria and the deceased over the land and furthermore nothing was recovered by the police at the alleged disclosure of the accused. 10. PW-6, Gulzar Ahmad Khan son of Saif-ud-din Khan also stated in his examination-in-chief that nothing was seized in his presence and in cross-examination he deposed that he had no knowledge about the dispute. 11. PW-7, Siraj-ud-din Khan, who is the brother of PW-6, Gulzar Ahmad Khan, also stated in his examination-in-chief that to his knowledge the deceased did not have any dispute with any of the accused who were his relatives and neighbours. 12. PW-8, Mohammad Ashraf Parray, Halqa Patwari, deposed only with regard to the place of occurrence as identified by the Police. PW-7, Siraj-ud-din Khan, who is the brother of PW-6, Gulzar Ahmad Khan, also stated in his examination-in-chief that to his knowledge the deceased did not have any dispute with any of the accused who were his relatives and neighbours. 12. PW-8, Mohammad Ashraf Parray, Halqa Patwari, deposed only with regard to the place of occurrence as identified by the Police. He had nothing to say with regard to the commission of the offence or with the involvement of the accused. 13. PW-9, Abdul Hamid Khan son of Ghulam Rasool Khan, stated that, to his knowledge, the deceased did not have any property dispute with any of the accused except Bashir, nor with his wife. With regard to the recovery memos dated 08.02.2007, he stated that the signatures were taken on blank papers and no recovery was made in his presence nor was any photograph taken in his presence. He identified his signatures over both the recovery memos but with the above stated qualification and, in any event, he was not shown the clothes which were allegedly recovered. In cross examination he further dented the prosecution case by stating that accused Bashir and Qasim did not make any disclosure to the police about the occurrence in his presence nor anything was recovered at their instance. 14. PW-10, Jamal-ud-din Kataria son of Mukhoo Kataria had stated that the deceased Shahzaman Khan did not have any dispute with the accused but he had heard that deceased had some dispute with accused Bashir Ahmad Khan over some money pertaining to his marriage with a Bengali lady. Furthermore, although he identified his signatures on the recovery memo, he stated that the contents were not correct. In cross examination he further reinforced the aforesaid statement with regard to the recovery memo, whereby he stated that although the same bears his signatures, the same was blank at the time when the signatures were taken. He further stated that the accused had not made any disclosure in his presence nor was any seizure made in his presence. He further dents the prosecution case by stating that recovery memos dated 08.02.2007 were based on lies and that his signatures were taken on blank papers. 15. PW-11, Jamal-ud-din Deedad son of Naik Mohammad Deedad has also not supported the prosecution case. He further dents the prosecution case by stating that recovery memos dated 08.02.2007 were based on lies and that his signatures were taken on blank papers. 15. PW-11, Jamal-ud-din Deedad son of Naik Mohammad Deedad has also not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he did not know whether anybody wanted to grab the property of the deceased Shahzaman Khan and he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. In cross examination, he reinforced his statement made in his examination-in-chief that the accused did not have any dispute or enmity with the deceased and that to his knowledge, the accused did not hatch any conspiracy to kill the deceased. 16. PW12 to PW-16 are Police witnesses and their depositions do not, in any way, establish the complicity of the accused. 17. Insofar as PW-17 is concerned, he is Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Mir and he has, inter alia, proved EXPW-19/3 and 19/4 (injury memos) as also the postmortem examination reports marked as EXPW-17/1 and 17/2. He has opined that possibly Mst Fatima Jan may have died as a result of strangulation but he was not sure as to the actual cause of death so he sought a confirmation from the FSL expert. He had stated that deceased Shahzaman Khan had multiple injuries on his face and head but the said Doctor had not been shown any heavy or sharp edged weapon and had any weapon been shown to him, he could have definitely said as to whether the injuries were caused by such weapon or not. 18. PW-18, Manzoor Ahmad Qadri is the Scientist Serology, FSL, Srinagar. He stated that none of the exhibits which he had examined were produced before the Court. He also stated that he cannot say whether the blood group "A" and "B" mentioned in his certificate were of the deceased persons or any other person. He further submitted in his cross examination that he could not say as to whether the blood stains of human origin which were detected on exhibit No. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 came from a particular person because of the fact that no sample for comparison purposes were sent to him. He further stated that he was not in a position to say as to whether the blood stains belonged to the suspect, because of the non-availability of the blood samples of any suspect whatsoever. 19. He further stated that he was not in a position to say as to whether the blood stains belonged to the suspect, because of the non-availability of the blood samples of any suspect whatsoever. 19. The last witness is PW-19, Ghulam Mohammad Rather, Inspector and his examination and cross examination also do not help the prosecution case. 20. After examining the entire evidence which had been produced by the prosecution and on examination of the statements of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the trial Court also noted the frank and fair statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not at all prove the involvement of accused No. 1 to 3 in the commission of offence. The Public Prosecutor had also prayed that accused No. 1 to 3, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Kataria, Shahzad Ahmad Kataria and Farooq Ahmad Moughal be acquitted. 21. We are at pains to understand as to how the State could have preferred an acquittal appeal against these three accused when the Public Prosecutor had also fairly and frankly conceded the case against them, and the State has not been able to point out anything which would indicate that the concession was not borne by the record. 22. Insofar as the remaining two accused are concerned, namely, Bashir Ahmad Khan and Mir Qasim, we entirely agree with the trial Court that there is no evidence whatsoever to connect them with the crimes. The conclusions of the trial Court were as under:- "As there is no eye witness to the occurrence, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. As stated above the motive behind the murder of Shahzaman by the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan is that he had acted as a broker for the marriage of the deceased with a Bengali woman, who thereafter deserted him. The deceased paid him a hefty amount for the said marriage and when he demanded the money back it became a cause of concern for him which led him to commit the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses Nos. The deceased paid him a hefty amount for the said marriage and when he demanded the money back it became a cause of concern for him which led him to commit the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 7 who are residents of the Village whereas PW-2 who happens to be the mother of the deceased, it is proved that the deceased Shahzaman had contracted second marriage with a Bengali lady for the reason that he had no issue from his first wife Mst. Fatima, whereas it is also proved that accused Bashir Ahmad Khan was instrumental in getting him married to the Bengali woman. It is also proved that Bengali woman did not prove faithful to the deceased and ran away, whereas the deceased had paid hefty amount to the accused for the said marriage. However, among the prosecution witnesses only PW-9 has deposed that after the Bengali wife of the deceased ran away, he asked the accused Bashir for repayment of the amount or else gets him his wife back. This was the only dispute between the accused and the deceased. Accused Bashir Ahmad Khan has not adduced any evidence in defence to disprove this fact. As such the prosecution has been able to prove that the relation between the deceased and the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan turned hostile when the Bengali wife of the deceased ran away and the accused failed to repay him the amount received. However, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that there was ever any dispute or quarrel between the deceased Shahzaman and accused Mir Qasim his brother which would have prompted him to commit the murder of his brother. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the disclosure made by the accused during their custody which led to the recovery of their blood stained clothes which had got stained with blood while commuting the murder of Shazaman as per the prosecution both the accused have made the disclosure in their local language in presence of the police personnel belonging to Police Station Kupwara, whereas Rafiq Ahmad Qadri, Dy. S.P. Head-quarter Kupwara was also present and the disclosure was reduced into writing by SHO Police Station Kupwara, whereas the recovery on the same day was effected in presence of Police Constables, two civilians namely Jamal-ud-din Kataria and Abdul Majeed Khan and Rafiq Ahmad Qadri Dy. S.P. Head-quarter Kupwara. Prosecution has not examined Shri Rafiq Ahmad Qadri Dy. S.P. Head-quarter as its witness, nor has he been cited in the list of witnesses. Similarly Constable Fayaz Ahmad No. 187/KP and Constable Mohammad Latief No. 650/KP too have not been examined, not cited as witnesses, whereas prosecution has failed to examine Head Constable Khazir Mohammad PW-14. Prosecution witnesses Jamal-Ud-Din and Abdul Aziz the only two civilians witnesses to the recovery memos have denied any recovery made by the Police in their presence and have further stated that they were only made to sign the blank papers. Assuming that the disclosure made by the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan and Mir Qasim led to the recovery of their blood stained clothes, but there is no evidence to prove that the articles were sealed on spot and remained un-tempered till they were received in FSL on 14.02.2007. As per the statement of Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Qadri Scientist (Serology) FSL Srinagar, he received two sealed packets marked as A and B wherein blood stains of human origins were detected on the exhibit Nos. Q-7/07 to Q-15/07 and Q-17/07 which were of AB blood group. He again received two more sealed packets marked as C and D on 14.02.2007. Blood stains of human origins were detected on the exhibit/Nos. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 which were of the blood group AB. The witness in his statement has deposed that no sample for comparison was received by him and he cannot say that AB blood group as mentioned in his certificate is of the deceased or any other person. There was no individual mark on the exhibits. Witness in his concluding statement has stated that the blood stains found on exhibit Nos. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 were not of the alleged deceased in the instant case. For the reasons aforesaid even if it is proved that while in custody the accused Bashir Ahmad/khan and/Mir Qasim made disclosures which led to the recovery of their blood stained clothes, is not proved that the blood stains on exhibit/no. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 were of the deceased. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 were not of the alleged deceased in the instant case. For the reasons aforesaid even if it is proved that while in custody the accused Bashir Ahmad/khan and/Mir Qasim made disclosures which led to the recovery of their blood stained clothes, is not proved that the blood stains on exhibit/no. Q-19/07 and Q-21/07 were of the deceased. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Bashir Ahmad Khan and Mir Qasim while causing the death of Shahzaman and Mst. Fatima had received blood stains on their clothes which were thereafter recovered at their disclosure. For these reasons the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused No. 4 and 5 whereas admittedly there is no evidence whether direct or circumstantial against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Hence all the accused are acquitted. Accused No. 4 and 5 are discharged of their personal bonds. Accused No. 4 and 5 shall be released from custody forthwith. Articles seized shall be destroyed after the time of appeal is over. File after due completion be put to records." 23. We do not see any reason whatsoever to disagree with the view of the trial Court and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The approach in the case of a criminal acquittal appeal has to be different from that of an appeal against conviction. Normally, unless and until some glaring defect or perversity is pointed out in an order of acquittal, the appellate court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. In the present case no such glaring defect or perversity has been pointed out. That being the case and also because we have examined the evidence threadbare, we find that the prosecution has not at all been able to make out its case against the accused. We also like to record our anguish at the callous and shoddy manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the police. The result being that the perpetrator or perpetrators of the double murder have gone unpunished and are roaming free! 24. However, the appeal, having no merit, is dismissed.