JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - Complainant PW-14 Om Prakash who claims himself to be the victim of the occurrence, aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) from the charge under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 30.5.2009 passed by learned P.O. Fast Track Court, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 22/2008, has preferred the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the overwhelming evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of eye witnesses suggesting that it is the accused who has murdered his father late Mohar Singh on 23.2.2008 between 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The prosecution case that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused and that the latter after the commission of the offence has fled away from the place of occurrence has been ignored without assigning any cogent reasons. The recovery of cell phone of the deceased at his instance in the bus stand at Palampur has also not been taken into consideration. Besides, the appellant-complainant, the prosecution case was supported by PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-16 Kamal Singh, however, their testimony is erroneously brushed aside. The statement of Khem Singh that the accused has confessed his guilt when he called him over his cell phone and that of Bhima Ram, driver in whose vehicle the accused fled away from the village, has also been erroneously ignored. The link evidence which stands satisfactorily explained has also not been taken into consideration. 2. Now, if coming to the factual matrix, on 23.2.2008, complainant PW-14 Om Prakash noticed his father standing outside the Dhaba of PW-16 Kamal Singh. He asked him to come to home. The deceased allegedly told PW-14 Om Prakash to go to home and that he was also coming. PW-14 Om Prakash came to home and had food with other members of his family. His father, the deceased, however, did not turn up and on this his mother told him to find out as to why his father has not come to home. On this, PW-14 Om Prakash called his father on his cell No. 94184 56460. He in turn told the complainant that he was in Kamal Dhaba along with PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh and Pawan Kumar alias Kukku (the accused). On this, PW-14 Om Prakash called his father on his cell No. 94184 56460. He in turn told the complainant that he was in Kamal Dhaba along with PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh and Pawan Kumar alias Kukku (the accused). Around 9:15 PM, PW-2 Jaswant Singh, who in relation is maternal Uncle of PW-14 Om Prakash asked over telephone as to whether his father had reached at home or not. Also that, he had left Kamal Dhaba much earlier. The accused allegedly had old enmity with the family of the deceased as 2-3 years ago, he had set their house on fire. He had also administered beatings to the elder brother of the complainant. The accused had been threatening the deceased and other members of his family to do away with their lives. Therefore, suspecting some foul play, PW-14 Om Prakash accompanied by his mother Smt. Pausi Devi went out in search of his father Mohar Singh towards Makhakhar Khud road. They noticed dead body of his father Mohar Singh lying on the road and blood oozing out of his head, nose and ears. They had seen one more person coming on the road with the help of light of mobile torch towards them. However, when they reached near bridge that person disappeared. PW-14 Om Prakash informed his Uncle Ajay Kumar PW-4 and requested him to inform the police of Police Chowki Janjhaili, District Mandi. Also that, he suspected the hands of accused in the murder of his father due to old enmity. 3. The police came to spot. The statement of PW-14 Om Prakash Ext. PW-14/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. Subsequently, case under Section 302 came to be registered against the accused vide FIR No. PW-10/A in PS Gohar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. The investigation was conducted by Insp. SHO Jagdish Chand (PW- 17). Inquest papers Ext. PW-3/B were prepared. He got the dead body photographed vide photographs Ext. PW-14/B to PW-14/g. He prepared the site plan Ext. PW-17/B. Disclosure statement Ext. PW-3/C was recorded. Site plan of the place of recovery of cell phone Ext. P-1 at the instance of the accused Ext. PW-17/D was also prepared. At the instance of the accused danda Ext. P-4 was recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW-3/D and the site plan Ext. PW-17/E in this regard was prepared. Blood stained jacket, Pajama and chappal of the deceased Ext. Site plan of the place of recovery of cell phone Ext. P-1 at the instance of the accused Ext. PW-17/D was also prepared. At the instance of the accused danda Ext. P-4 was recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW-3/D and the site plan Ext. PW-17/E in this regard was prepared. Blood stained jacket, Pajama and chappal of the deceased Ext. P-7 to P-9 were taken into possession. Application for conducting post mortem of dead body of the deceased Ext. PW-7/A was prepared. Post mortem was got conducted vide report Ext. PW-7/B. The opinion of the doctor Ext. PW-7/C was also obtained. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded. The reports Ext. PW-17/L and Ext. PW-17/M were received from the FSL. On the completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was filed in the trial Court. 4. Learned trial Judge, on taking into consideration the report filed by the police and the evidence collected found a primafacie case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC made out against the accused. The charge was accordingly framed against him. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial, therefore, the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence in support of its case. 5. The star prosecution witnesses are the complainant PW- 14 Om Prakash, PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh, PW-16 Kamal Singh and PW-6, Bhima Ram, driver of vehicle No. HP-33D- 9288. 6. The remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-7 Dr. Ajay Negi, PW-8 Const. Yashwant Singh, PW-9 Insp. Hemant Kumar, PW- 10 Insp. Dharam Singh, PW-11 HC Inder Dev, PW-12 Const. Tej Ram, PW-13 Const. Tulsi Ram, PW-15 ASI Rinchengial Chhen and PW-17 Insp. Jagdish Chand are formal as they remained associated during the course of investigation of the case in one way or the other. 7. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of material prosecution witnesses has proceeded to form an opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, as such, has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. 7. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of material prosecution witnesses has proceeded to form an opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, as such, has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. As noticed at the outset, the legality and validity of the findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court has been questioned before this Court in the present appeal on several grounds, however, mainly that the overwhelming evidence available on record has not been considered and to the contrary, the accused acquitted of the charge without assigning any cogent reasons. 8. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused. It is, however, the complainant, the victim of the occurrence who has approached this Court by way of filing the present appeal with a prayer to quash the same and record the findings of conviction against him. 9. In the above premise to decide the fate of this appeal, reappraisal of the evidence available on record is required. The combined reading of the testimony of complainant PW-14 Om Prakash, PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-16 Kamal Singh no doubt demonstrate that on 23.2.2008 accused was present in the Dhaba of PW-16 Kamal Singh at village Makhakhar. He was seen standing there around 6:00 PM by his son PW-14 Om Prakash, the complainant. As per the testimony of PW-1 Rattan Chand, the accused, Hem Singh and Ram Lal were working as labourers with him as he was providing breast wall to his fields. He made payment of wages to all of them around 2:30 PM. They all came to his house at 5:30 PM with a bottle of liquor. they consumed liquor in his house whereas he went to the Tea stall of PW-16 Kamal Singh at Makhakhar. Deceased Mohar Singh was also sitting there. He along with Kamal Singh and deceased Mohar Singh planned to buy chicken and liquor. Consequently, they bought 1 kg. chicken and one half bottle of liquor "Officers Choice" brand. They cooked chicken in the Tea stall and consumed liquor there. Around 7:30 PM, PW-2 Jaswant Singh who happens to be younger brother of Kamal Singh also came there. They served chicken and liquor to PW-2 Jaswant Singh also. Later, the accused also came there around 8:00 PM. chicken and one half bottle of liquor "Officers Choice" brand. They cooked chicken in the Tea stall and consumed liquor there. Around 7:30 PM, PW-2 Jaswant Singh who happens to be younger brother of Kamal Singh also came there. They served chicken and liquor to PW-2 Jaswant Singh also. Later, the accused also came there around 8:00 PM. He was under the influence of liquor. He occupied a chair inside the Tea stall. He kept on sitting quietly. Deceased Mohar Singh said that since the accused was already under the influence of liquor, therefore, he should not be served liquor any further. According to PW-1 Rattan Chand, after some time, PW-2 Jaswant Singh left the Tea stall first. He was followed by the accused. This witness also came back to his house. It is on the next day, i.e. 24.2.2008, he was called by the police and associated in the investigation of the case. He is a witness to the recovery of cell phone Ext. P-1 of the deceased. He is also a witness to the disclosure statement Ext. PW-3/C allegedly made on 27.2.2008 by the accused in Police Chowki Janjhaili. 10. PW-2 Jaswant Singh has also supported the prosecution case from the stage he joined the deceased and others in the Tea stall of his elder brother PW-16 Kamal Singh at Makhakhar where he was served with two pegs and chicken by them. Since his wife was not at home and the children were alone in the house, therefore, he was in hurry to leave that place, however, the accused under the influence of liquor came there in his presence. Anyhow, he left that place and went to his house. When he came out of his house with his son who had to answer the call of nature, he noticed the deceased in the courtyard of the house of his brother. He asked the deceased to stay in his house but the latter said that he is all right and going to his house. After some time, he rang up complainant PW-14 Om Prakash and enquired as to whether his father had reached home or not who in turn replied in negative. When he called complainant PW-14 Om Prakash again after ten minutes, he was apprised by PW-14 Om Prakash that he is going in search of his father with his mother. After some time, he rang up complainant PW-14 Om Prakash and enquired as to whether his father had reached home or not who in turn replied in negative. When he called complainant PW-14 Om Prakash again after ten minutes, he was apprised by PW-14 Om Prakash that he is going in search of his father with his mother. On this, he also went out in search of the deceased. The deceased was searched on the path which he had been using to go to his house but could not be traced out. Further, after some time, PW-14 Om Prakash rang up and told that his father is lying in Nallah and asked him to come there. Thereafter, he went there and noticed the dead body of Mohar Singh lying there. In view of the nature of the injury on the person of the deceased, the same was found to be caused with sharp edged weapon. PW-14 Om Prakash and the wife of deceased told that they had noticed a person with torch light at a distance of 20 feet from the dead body. He most probably was the accused who ran away from the spot as their relations with him were not cordial. When confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 nothing to the effect that the deceased had been using a particular path to have access to his house and that his dead body was found lying on other path was found to be recorded therein. It is also not recorded in his statement that during the night intervening 23rd/24th February, 2008, many people gathered at the place of occurrence and were in the knowledge of the deceased murdered by the accused. As regards the recovery of cell phone of the deceased, the same according to this witness was recovered from an open space. He admitted that it was very difficult to walk without light, however, expressed his ignorance qua the type of light the deceased was using while going to his house. 11. PW-16 Kamal Singh, is the proprietor of Kamal Tea stall. As a matter of fact, it is in his tea stall, the chicken was cooked and the liquor consumed by him and also by the deceased as well as PW- 1 Rattan Chand. Whereas later on, PW-2 Jaswant Singh also joined them. 11. PW-16 Kamal Singh, is the proprietor of Kamal Tea stall. As a matter of fact, it is in his tea stall, the chicken was cooked and the liquor consumed by him and also by the deceased as well as PW- 1 Rattan Chand. Whereas later on, PW-2 Jaswant Singh also joined them. Accused Pawan also came there, however, he being already under the influence of liquor was not served the liquor any further. It is PW-2 Jaswant Singh who left the Tea Stall first. He was followed by the accused and deceased Mohar Singh. 12. It is seen that the abovesaid material witnesses i.e. complainant PW-14 Om Prakash, PW-1 Rattan Chand, PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-16 Kamal Singh are interested in the prosecution case because PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-16 Kamal Singh are none else but maternal Uncle of complainant PW-14 Om Prakash, son of the deceased. They all have improved their earlier version to considerable extent. In Ext. PW-14/A, nothing has come on record that PW-14 Om Prakash and his mother had seen the accused running in valley side from the place where the dead body was lying and rather PW-14 Om Prakash suspected the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence on account of their inimical relations with them. Above all, as rightly noticed by learned trial Judge, the cause of the enmity i.e. setting the house of the complainant party on fire by the accused is not at all proved because no evidence to this effect has been produced. Much has been said about the disclosure statement Ext. PW-3/B made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of PW- 3 Narbada Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Tungdhar, however, such statement having been made by the accused in the manner as claimed by the prosecution is not at all proved on record for the reason that as per her version, the danda Ext. P-4 was not lying concealed and rather recovered from a place under the bridge from an open place. 13. Now, if coming to the recovery of cell phone at Palampur bus stand, the prosecution story that the accused had opened the door and recovered the same is not supported even by PW-14 Om Prakash also because as per his version, the cell phone was picked up by the accused from the bushes. 13. Now, if coming to the recovery of cell phone at Palampur bus stand, the prosecution story that the accused had opened the door and recovered the same is not supported even by PW-14 Om Prakash also because as per his version, the cell phone was picked up by the accused from the bushes. It is the cell phone of the deceased alone and no evidence such as some identification mark thereon is produced during the course of trial. On the other hand, as per the testimony of PW-16 Kamal Singh discussed supra, the cell phone of the deceased was not in his pocket as he had put the same for charging. PW-3 Narbada Devi has nowhere stated that the disclosure statement was made by the accused in the presence of PW-2 Jaswant Singh and PW-1 Rattan Chand. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 Rattan Chand to this effect is not correct. The testimony of PW-1 Rattan Chand that dead body was lying in Nallah also seems to be incorrect for the reason that PW-2 Jaswant Singh has noticed the deceased present in the courtyard of his brother and as per his further version on seeing the injuries, the same most probably were caused with sharp edged weapon. PW-16 Kamal Singh has stated that the accused had left his Tea stall well before deceased Mohar Singh. There is no evidence that deceased and accused were seen together thereafter. There is even no iota of evidence that the so called person present there with torch light in his hand was none else but the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly observed from the situation prevalent on the place of occurrence with the help of site plan Ext. PW-17/E and the photographs Ext. PW-14/B to PW-14/G that the dead body was brought there from somewhere else. When as per the inquest report, the injuries on the person of deceased most probably were inflicted with sharp edged weapon without there being any cogent and reliable evidence that the accused was either having some sharp edged weapon or danda with him, it is difficult to connect him with the commission of the offence. 14. When as per the inquest report, the injuries on the person of deceased most probably were inflicted with sharp edged weapon without there being any cogent and reliable evidence that the accused was either having some sharp edged weapon or danda with him, it is difficult to connect him with the commission of the offence. 14. Now, if coming to the testimony of Khem Singh, PW-5 that the deceased when absconded and contacted on cell phone confessed that it is he who had murdered the deceased and that he accordingly apprised Mukesh Kumar the son of the deceased is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt for the reason that said Mukesh Kumar was not examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of PW-5 Khem Singh in this regard. There is even no iota of evidence to show that this witness had contacted the deceased over cell phone. Similar statement of PW-6 Bhima Ram, the driver of the vehicle in which the accused allegedly travelled to Mandi would have been relevant had the evidnce that wife of the accused was not ill or taken to the hospital at Mandi for treatment been collected and produced during the course of trial. Therefore, the prosecution evidence, as discussed hereinabove, is not at all suggestive of that it is the accused who alone is responsible for the so called murder of the deceased. 15. Another material prosecution witness is Dr. Ajay Negi (PW-7). No doubt, in his opinion the cause of death was "intracranial haemourage", however, he has not ruled out the possibility of sustaining injuries like 3 to 5 if someone is in the state of intoxication and had a fall from height. The scientific investigation got conducted by the Investigating Agency reveals that the quantity of liquor in the blood of the deceased was 275.0 mg%. The report of FSL Ext. PW-17/L can be pressed into service in this regard. Not only this, but in the opinion of the doctor, an intoxicated person is harmful to himself and to others also. In his opinion, the incised wound i.e. injury No. 5 could have not been caused with danda Ext. P-4. On the other hand, the blood sample of the accused were not taken nor he was subjected to medical examination to show that the blood of accused was also there on the blood stained clothes i.e. jacket etc. Ext. In his opinion, the incised wound i.e. injury No. 5 could have not been caused with danda Ext. P-4. On the other hand, the blood sample of the accused were not taken nor he was subjected to medical examination to show that the blood of accused was also there on the blood stained clothes i.e. jacket etc. Ext. P-7 to P-9. The probable time of death in the opinion of PW-7 Dr. Ajay Negi was instantaneous, meaning thereby that the possibility of death of deceased Mohar Singh by way of fall cannot be ruled out. Interestingly enough, the injuries on the person of the deceased were found to be caused by different weapons. The injuries being multiple in nature could have not been inflicted simultaneously. 16. The other evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the police officials who remained associated in the investigation of the case would have been used as link evidence, however, had the prosecution been otherwise able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, since the present is a case of no evidence, therefore, it is for this reason, the State/prosecution has not opted for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment. 17. It is relevant to point out that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence to show that Mohar Singh was murdered by the accused. 18. As noticed supra, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and as such, the present case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence. In such like cases, as per the settled proposition of law, the chain of circumstances appearing on record should be complete in all respects so as to lead to the only conclusion that it is accused alone who has committed the offence. The conditions necessary in order to enable the court to record the findings of conviction against an offender on the basis of circumstantial evidence have been detailed in a judgment of this Court in Devinder Singh vs. State of H.P. 1990 (1) Shim.L.C. 82 which reads as under:- "1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilt. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved AND 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 19. It has also been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Akhilesh Halam vs. State of Bihar 1995 Suppl.(3) SCC 357 that the prosecution is not only required to prove each and every circumstance as relied upon against the accused, but also that the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced here-as-under:- "......It may be stated that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now settled by a serious of pronouncements of this Court. According to the standard enunciated by this court the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the case must not only by fully established but the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for as conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of an accused is to be inferred, should be conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime." 20. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the present is a case where the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the present is a case where the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused, as such, has rightly been acquitted of the charge framed against him by the learned trial Court. Being so, the impugned judgment which is well reasoned and well considered calls for no interference in the present appeal by this Court. 21. The appeal, as such, being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Personal bonds furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and the surety discharged.