JUDGMENT : Moolchandani, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11/08/1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No 8/91 by which the accused-appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default thereto to undergo for one month’s rigorous imprisonment and both have also been awarded two year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. 2. 2. The contents of Ex.P.20 F.I.R. No.328 dated 17.10.1990 reads as under :- ^^lsokesa Jheku Fkkuknkj lkgc] guqekux<+ taŒA Jheku] fuosnu gS fd ge lkr HkkbZ gSaA lcls cM+k gkfde flag mlls NksVk ikyk flag mlls NksVk ftrk flag mlls NksVk eSa esjs ls NksVk xksjk flag mlls NksVk vej flag mlls NksVk cydkSj flag gSA ge lc vyx&vyx jgrs gSaA gkfde flag esjs pkpk y{e.kflag ds xksn x;k gqvk Fkk] gkfde flag us cSad ls VªSDVj ykWu ij fy;k FkkA mldk ykWu gkfde flag ls Hkjk ugha x;k rc gkfde flag us viuh 20 ch?kk tehu pd 25 ,y-,y-MCY;q- esa xq#nso flag tVfl[k vkSj tUMk fl[kku dks cspuh rg dj xq#nso flag ls nks yk[k #i;s ysdj VªsDVj dh fd'r Hkj nhA o tehu dk dCtk xq#nso flag dks ns fn;kA xq#nso flag us [kkyh tehu esa dqN fnu igys pus Hkh cht fn;s FksA rkjh[k 14-10-90 dks eSa [ksr esa FkkA esjh ikuh dh ckjh FkhA xq#nso flag o mlds lkFk pkj&ikap vkneh vkSj FksA djhc v<+kbZ&rhu cts dh ckr gS fd VªsDVj ij gkfde flag o mldk yM+dk tx#i flag o gkfde flag dh vkSjr eqŒ clUr dkSj o tx#i flag dh vkSjr pkjks tus p<+dj vk;sA gkfde flag o gkfde flag dh vkSjr [ksr esa mrj x,A gkfde flag ds ikl ,d ukyh 12 cksj dh ykbZlasl dh cUnwd FkhA gkfde flag us cUnwd dk ,d Qk;j xq#nso flag th oxSjk dh rjQ fd;k mUgksaus gkfde flag dh cUnwd idM+ yh Fkh] tx#i flag o mldh vkSjr VªsDVj ysdj vkxs pys x;sA gkfde flag o mldh vkSjr nksuksa xkao dh rjQ jokuk gks x,] eSaus blds ckn esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dks eSaus ugha ns[kkA vkt lqcg djhc lkr cts esjh HkkHkh clUr dkSj esjs ikl ?kj vkbZA og eq>s dgk fd rsjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dh ryk'k djks og brokj ls gh irk ugha dgha pyk x;k] ckn esa xkao esa ;g lquk fd n'kZuflag ds [ksr esa ,d vkneh dh yk'k fMXxh esa iM+h gqbZ gSA iqfyl tc ekSds ij vk xbZ Fkh rc eSa Hkh ekSds ij pyk x;kA yk'k fMXxh ls ckgj fudkyh ftlds gkFk iSj lkQk ls cU/ks gq, Fks tks yk'k esjs cM+s HkkbZ gkfde flag dh FkhA eSaus f'kuk[r dj yhA esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag o xq#nso flag dk tehu dk vkilh >xM+k t:j gSA esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dks fdlh us gkFk&ikao cka/kdj dRy dj n'kZuflag dh fMXxh esa Mky fn;kA nj[okLr is'k dj vtZ gS fd dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA** 3. Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the witnesses of the prosecution except PW.1 Smt. Gulab Kaur have become hostile, so far as testimony of Smt. Gulab Kaur is concerned, it is also not reliable because a real mother cannot keep alleged assassination of her own son concealed for days together, initially morgue against unknown was registered and subsequently a false story was invented through PW.1 Gulab Kaur, it is quite unnatural that a mother, whose own son is allegedly taken away in a suspicious way with some ulterior motive to be harmed or eliminated, would not raise alarm, rescue or resist the killing of her own son, from the clutches of deceased’s wife or his son, motive of the offence has also not been established, prosecution has failed to establish as to what was the “reason and motive” behind the alleged murder, which is a paramount consideration for cases relating to murder. A mother, who observed that after untoward body of his son is thrown in water pond, would certainly cry and after witnessing the occurrence, would rush to her own home and convey the crime to rest of the family members, disclosing the names of wrong doers, but nothing of this kind has taken place, which makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful and a mother will never conceal murder of his own son for days together, moreover, all the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the version of the prosecution, attitude of Smt. Gulab Kaur has also remained highly unnatural and doubtful, so her testimony cannot be a reason to convict the accused persons, the findings of learned trial Court are not sustainable, so appeal be allowed and the findings of learned trial Court be quashed. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor has contended that there is no abnormality or unnatural conduct on the part of Smt. Gulab Kaur, she was under shock, when she witnessed killing of her own son by her daughter-in-law and grand son, son of the deceased, she became nervous, so she went to the house of her daughter under psychological trauma and fear hence she could not convey the incident of killing to anybody, but when she gathered information about the same that her son is no more from his son-in-law, then she disclosed everything truthfully and her police statements recorded under Section 161, as well as, statements recorded under Section 164 and statements made during the trial are unaltered and are corroborative, so there is no error in the findings of the learned trial Court. Appeal deserves to be dismissed, so it be dismissed. 4. The record of the trial court reveals that initially on detection of dead body from water pond, a morgue under Section 174 of CrPC was registered vide Ex.P.18 on 17/10/1990 against unknown, subsequently complainant Darshan Singh son of Prem Singh, brother of deceased, disclosing that a scuffle had taken place between the deceased and Gurudev Singh, to whom deceased Hakim Singh had sold his agriculture land, for lawful consideration and had handed over possession of the field to him, the F.I.R also discloses that during alleged scuffle, deceased Hakim Singh, his wife Basant Kaur and his son Jagroop Singh went to the field and Hakim Singh fired 12 bore gun shot targeting Gurudev Singh vendee of the land and this aspect of the F.I.R has been recited as an indication of animosity and suspected involvement of non-assailant party, buyer of agriculture field, who is also reported to be a close relative of the deceased. 5. The dead body of deceased Hakim Singh was detected from the water-pond on 17/10/1990 and the matter got twisted after disclosure of story by Smt. Gulab Kaur PW.1 a 75 year old lady, none-else but mother of deceased Hakim Singh and grand-mother of accused Jagroop Singh and mother-in-law of co-accused Basant Kaur. The twisting disclosure has been made by Smt. Gulab Kaur on 21/10/1990 vide Ex.P.1 police statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur in context of which Ex.D.2 statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur were recorded under Section 164 of CrPC as well. 6. The twisting disclosure has been made by Smt. Gulab Kaur on 21/10/1990 vide Ex.P.1 police statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur in context of which Ex.D.2 statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur were recorded under Section 164 of CrPC as well. 6. All the witnesses of the prosecution, other than Smt. Gulab Kaur have become hostile, even witnesses pertaining to Panchayatnama, spot map, author relating to F.I.R and testimony relating to recovery have totally negated the story of the prosecution and have denied documentary exhibits relating to the investigation. 7. Statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur are also highly doubtful because she despite being mother of deceased Hakim Singh, who was allegedly taken to some isolated “Nohra” was beaten and carried to the water-pond and further was thrown away there and she remained silent during observing the entire event, she allegedly smelt something ulterior, so she latently followed her son, grand-son and daughter-in-law, where she heard her son Hakim Singh imploring “Do not beat” because agriculture land was alienated on their consent, then mysterious silence stopped voice of her son Hakim Singh, who was further carried away on the cot by the accused persons with help to two unknown persons to a nearby pond, passage of which went through the habitated locality, even from the front of the house of the deceased without noticing it by anybody and Smt. Gulab Kaur followed them upto the spot of water-pond, seen them throwing deceased in the water pond without any help of cry or even to stop the alleged unlawful, she kept mum and in the same midnight time she went away to some distant area of Hirnawali to the house of her daughter, where her son-in-law and their family members were present, but for days together, she did not reveal or share unnatural with any of the family member/s even with her own daughter and such conduct of Smt. Gulab Kaur, utters mystery and unreliable conduct of a mother, under the alleged shocking circumstance and event relating thereto, which makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful. 8. PW.2 Amar Singh brother of the deceased has become hostile, likewise PW.3 Darshan Singh, author of the F.I.R and brother of deceased has also become hostile and both have denied their police statements as well. 9. PW.4 Dr. 8. PW.2 Amar Singh brother of the deceased has become hostile, likewise PW.3 Darshan Singh, author of the F.I.R and brother of deceased has also become hostile and both have denied their police statements as well. 9. PW.4 Dr. R.K. Gupta, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 18/10/1990 vide Ex.P.4, has said that Ex.P.4 is in his hand writing, which contains his signatures and he has said that body of the deceased was brought out from the water-pond on 17/10/1990. Per Ex.P.18 report under Section 174 Cr.P.C, information pertaining to detection of body was received on 17/10/1990 at 3.30 p.m., but for rest of the day, what went wrong for not conducting autopsy is obscure, Dr. Gupta has said that “the cause of death was strangulation and choking of the neck with some object, he has specifically said that no injury mark was there on the body of the deceased and the deceased had eaten meals before the death”. 10. On the contrary, Smt. Gulab Kaur, mother of the deceased has said that she heard that her son was “saying not to beat him” and he was taken there on pretext of serving meals, instead of that he was beaten and allegedly strangulated there, but it has come clearly from the evidence that no arrangements of meals were there in the “Nohra”, then detection of semi-digested food and opinion of medical expert that deceased had eaten meals prior to few hours before his death and non-presence of injury marks on the body, makes the things more doubtful and attributes suggestion that Smt. Gulab Kaur has not narrated truth. 11. 11. There are several “unnatural” and “unreliable” statements of Smt. Gulab Kaur, since she has said that when Hakim Singh asked for serving meals, then his wife Smt. Basant Kaur said that come-along to “Nohra”, meals would be served there, so Hakim Singh went with Basant Kaur and Jagroop Singh to “Nohra”, she also followed them, it was midnight, she overheard from outside, dialogues of Hakim Singh, Jagroop Singh and Basant Kaur, where Hakim Singh was saying that he had sold the land with their consent, “why he was being given beatings”, then voice of Hakim Singh silenced, then Jagroop Singh, Basant Kaur and rest of the two unknown persons put/laid Hakìm Singh on the cot and took him away, she again pursued them upto water-pond, situated near the field of Dasrath Singh and Gurudwara and thrown away the body into the pond. The dead body has been recovered tied, but nothing of this kind of disclosure is there that Hakim Singh was died before throwing away into the water 12. PW.1 Smt. Gulab Kaur has narrated several significants, which goes to suggest that testimony of this lady is not trustworthy, “she has said that when, Hakim Singh was put on the cot and was being carried away, she followed them, they thrown away Hakim Singh in the water-pond, she heard a “splash” but she went away and while passing through the road, she came to Pakka Saharan from where she took a bus and went to “Hirnavali” to the house of her daughter. Her son-in-law Harpal Singh brought the news that Hakim Singh was no more and his body was found in a pond then she said that she is in knowledge of this, but did not say anything to anybody, advertently. She has further said that she was not well, so did not share it with anybody, in her cross-examination, she has said that in those days, she was living with Hakim Singh and no quarrel occurred at home and has said that “she can see, but her vision is poor” and has said that meals, tea, water etc. are prepared at home and no meals or tea is prepared in “Nohra” and has said that in way to Darshan Singh’s Diggi from “Nohra” of Hakim Singh, one has to pass through the road of Hakim Singh’s house. 13. are prepared at home and no meals or tea is prepared in “Nohra” and has said that in way to Darshan Singh’s Diggi from “Nohra” of Hakim Singh, one has to pass through the road of Hakim Singh’s house. 13. She has further said that she did not go to her house from the field and directly went to bus stand, no passenger was there at the bus stand and she was alone there, bus was coming from Hanumangarh and was going to Harnavali, she did not say to any co-passenger regarding the incident, she had purchased ticket and even conductor was not shared with the killing incident nor she asked to take her to police station, she has further said that on arrival at Hanumangarh bus stand, her nervousness and fear got vanished, she has further said that she is in notice that there was a thana at Hanumangarh, but she did not go to it and at 10-11, she reached at the house of her daughter at Hiranawali and fear extincted there and has further said that she did not share and inform at Hiranawali to her daughter, Jawai (son-in-law) and Sarpanch etc. that her son was murdered and has further narrated unbelievable by saying that if her Jawai had not shared the unpleasant as narrated by Doctor that Hakim Singh was no more, she would have not told and disclosed anything to him, as well. 14. She has further said that eight days later to the detection of dead body of her son, she went to police from Hiranavali Village alone to give statements, she has further contradicted several narrations of Ex.D.1 police statements and has said that two police constables went with her to the Court, when her statements were recorded and has said that in Ex.D.2, she did not inform that due to timidness, she restrained from informing Hakim Singh’s death, she has also said that she did not go to the house of her other sons to convey the incident because night was dark and she got scared of dogs and has also said that while she went to bus stand after observing the incident, she did not get scared of dogs and dark, so appraisal of the testimony of this witness shows that it is full of unreliable and contradictory altogether. 15. 15. A real mother would naturally check her son’s son and her son’s wife from doing anything homicidal upon her own son or would certainly cry out, rescue and call others for interfering and rescuing, rather Smt. Gulab Kaur observed everything in a silent way and did not react anything in a natural and normal way, she withheld the information of the incident for days together, on the one hand, she says that she was scared, on the other side, she says that timidness was not there, despite she did not say anything to anybody, she has even said that she would not have divulged the incident before anybody, had her son-in-law (Jawai) would have not informed regarding the death of Hakim Singh. 16. She has said that her son was taken, on the pretext of serving meal inside “Nohra”, but no meals or tea were ever prepared or were normally prepared there, “it has also come in the evidence that deceased Hakim Singh was a fearless, bold person, who even after transferring the land, allegedly for lawful consideration, went to grab the land from Gurudev Singh, with a 12 bore gun and threatened him and even fired there, had he been a person of timid nature, then unreliable as narrated could have appeared otherwise, an individual who is bold and goes with a fire arm weapon and abortively attempts, shotting fire, even something untoward, cannot be overpowered by his wife or a son and such a person will also not implore for mercy by saying that “Do not beat” but such a person would certainly try to counter the assault and even endeavour to exceed the defence limits. 17. There are says that deceased was beaten there, no meals were served, he was taken there on the pretext of rendering meals, but autopsy report reveals otherwise, since Dr. R.K. Gupta has said that there was no injury marks on the body of the deceased, and semi-digested food was found in the stomach since he had taken meals sometime prior to his death, it also capsizes the story of the prosecution and makes the revelation as made by Smt. Gulab Kaur quite unnatural and unbelievable. R.K. Gupta has said that there was no injury marks on the body of the deceased, and semi-digested food was found in the stomach since he had taken meals sometime prior to his death, it also capsizes the story of the prosecution and makes the revelation as made by Smt. Gulab Kaur quite unnatural and unbelievable. Smt. Gulab Kaur has also said that her son Hakim Singh went away with Basant Kaur and Jagroop Singh to “Nohra”, but in her Ex.D.2 statements as made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has said that Basant Kaur and Jagroop Singh said Hakim Singh that they will serve meal in “Nohra”, then Hakam Singh went to “Nohra”, Basant Kaur and Jagroop Singh went behind him, in her statement Ex.D.2 she has also said that Hakim Singh had gone to grab the land from Gurudev Singh, he fired there, Gurudev Singh took-away gun from him and deposited the same with police station after lodging complaint and in whole of the evidence, tractor loan, payment of two lakhs and receipt thereof from vendee has occurred, but Ex.D.2 also says that apart from it, some money was also borrowed, which too is not there in the other evidence. 18. Upon considering the afore-discussed evidence, it is suffice to mention that the entire evidence of the prosecution is untrustworthy and highly unreliable. Sole witness Smt. Gulab Kaur is a lady of 75 years and a lady of this age would certainly shun scaring and will boldly counter the alleged attack upon her own son, and would certainly inform the incident to all, instead of turning mute for days together, F.I.R is highly belated, as such strong doubt arises on the culpability of accused appellants. 19. In catena of verdicts, it has been ordained by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if there arises a doubt then the benefit ought to be extended to the accused person. Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 has laid down the conditions of circumstantial evidence on which conviction could be made in view of Section 3 of Evidence Act which postulates as under:- “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) 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 guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) 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.” In Varun Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 Crl.L.J. 675, it has been held that where chain of events is doubtful, no conviction can be based and it is settled legal proposition that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none-else. In Jiten Besra v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 2 S.C.C. (Cr.) 438 and in Kamla Devi vs. State of Delhi, 2012 (2) J.C.C. 1457 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it is found that circumstance could not point out towards guilt of accused, without any other inference being probable, the accused must get the benefit of doubt. In Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 1 SCC 101 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that in the cases of deficiencies of proof, benefit would be available to the person charged and in Narendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that in event of there being two possible views, one supporting the accused should be upheld and Hon’ble the Supreme Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right. 20. 20. In case under hand “motive” behind the murder is also not candid nor it is established since Hakim Singh had already sold his agriculture field to his relative after a legitimate reason to settle the bank tractor loan dues, possession of the field was handed over to him, deceased was adopted by his uncle Laxman Singh from where 1/3 share was more to be inherited, he was a bold person, who even went with a fire-arm to grab the land from the possession of legitimate purchaser and fired in the scuffle, his own son and wife for what reason, killed him is also uncertain and unestablished, so prosecution has failed to establish “motive”, as well, as to why a bold person like Hakim Singh would not be served meals and would be eliminated for no explicit reason having perceptible nexus with the notion of “motive”” Having regard to the above, we are of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case, evidence of the prosecution is improbable and unreliable, F.I.R is delayed without any cogent explanation, attitude of natural mother is also unrealistic and unbelievable. So, we feel that under the circumstances both the accused appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants-accused persons are on bail, so they need not to surrender, their bail bonds are discharged. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused/appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount respectively, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Record of the lower Court be sent back promptly with a copy of the judgment.