Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1912 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Narinder Kaur

2018-11-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SURYA KANT

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 26/2011 decided on 23.12.2011, vide which learned court below has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was, that on 15.2.2011 accused Narinder Kaur and her husband deceased Surinder Pal had checked into Vishal Hotel at Chintpurni at about 3:00 p.m. On their demand, complainant Birbal, a Hotel employee, gave them Room No. 517. Entry to this effect was made in the copy maintained by the Hotel staff by accused Narinder Kaur. On the same day, co-accused Jagdish Lal and Bhupinder Singh also came to the same Hotel and they were allotted Room No. 516. On 16.2.2011 at around 8:00 a.m., both the Rooms i.e. Room Nos. 516 and 517 were found locked. The lights of Room No.517 were found switched ''on'' so also the television in the room. Complainant Birbal saw a dead body of one person lying in a pool of blood on the bed of Room No. 517. As the owner of the Hotel had gone to Haridwar, accordingly Pradhan of the Panchayat was called and Police was also informed. Police came to the Hotel and broke open locks of both the rooms. The dead body of Surinder Pal was found on the bed in Room. No. 517. Injury marks were seen on the throat and chest of the dead body. All the three accused were also found missing from the Hotel. This was followed with the recording of statement of Birbal under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. following which a Ruqua was sent to Police Station, Dehra for registration of the case. This led to registration of FIR No 22/2011. Thereafter, Police prepared necessary site plan and broken locks of both the rooms were taken into possession by the Police. In the course of investigation, Police took into possession one yellow carry bag, half bottle of Bagpiper Whisky, one water bottle, pieces of broken bangles besides other articles. The copy maintained by the Hotel staff was also taken into possession by the Police. Inquest papers were filled up by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent for postmortem. In the course of investigation, Police took into possession one yellow carry bag, half bottle of Bagpiper Whisky, one water bottle, pieces of broken bangles besides other articles. The copy maintained by the Hotel staff was also taken into possession by the Police. Inquest papers were filled up by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The call details of telephone number of the accused were obtained by the Police. Specimen handwritings of accused Narinder Kaur and Bhupinder were obtained before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dehra and the same were sent to Questioned Documents Examiner to compare with the writings in the copy maintained by the Hotel staff and report of the expert opinion was obtained. Other case property was also sent to Chemical Examiner and report was also obtained by the Police. The dead body of deceased Surinder Pal was identified by his relatives. Investigation revealed that accused Jagdish Lal used to visit accused Narinder Kaur and this was objected to by deceased as well as his brother. The accused had threatened to kill the deceased. Investigation also revealed that on 15.2.2011 deceased Surinder Pal had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 49,900/- from SBI, Baddi Miani which was deposited in the account of accused Narinder Kaur. Investigation further revealed that on 15.2.2011 all three accused went to Hoshiarpur from Chintpurni in the taxi of one Sukhdev Singh and on their way they stopped their vehicle near a Picnic Spot from where the accused had subsequently, got effected the recovery of a knife with which deceased Surinder Pal was killed. The knife was recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the accused. The spot at Santa Singh Canal where accused had thrown the ''mobile'', ''sim'' and one ''purse'' was also got identified by them. 3. After the conclusion of Investigation, Challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was made out against the accused, they were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Vide judgment dated 23.12.2011, learned trial court acquitted all the accused by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the liability of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. Vide judgment dated 23.12.2011, learned trial court acquitted all the accused by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the liability of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial court held that the case being of circumstantial evidence, burden was heavily upon the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance against the accused in order to form a complete chain so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the scope of all reasonable doubts, but in the case in hand prosecution had failed to discharge the said burden. Learned trial court held that though the entries in Ext. P-1 stood proved to be those of accused Narinder Kaur and Bhupinder Singh, however, the same was a weak evidence which could not safely be relied upon without independent and reliable corroboration. It held that no record was produced from Vishal Hotel, Chintpurni to prove that PW2, Kulbir, was employed by the owner of said Hotel. It further held that the owner of Hotel who had gone to Haridwar on 15.2.2011 was thereafter never associated in the course of investigation otherwise he could have revealed as to whether PW1 and PW2 were employed by him in the Hotel and whether he had authorized PW2 to maintain Note Book Ex. P-1 with regard to the occupancy of the Hotel. Learned trial court also held that the statements of PW1 and PW2 revealed that accused were not known to them. The names of accused were not mentioned in the statement which was recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Learned trial court held that this established that the names of accused were not known to complainant and he could only identify the accused by face and in these circumstances test identification parade before the Magistrate was required to specifically prove the identity of the accused which was not carried out, as was evident from the statement of PW20, Sub Inspector, Tilak Raj. Learned trial court also held that statement of PW1-Birbal did not disclose that on the evening of 15.2.2011 he had seen the accused going out of the Hotel and there was no evidence produced on record by the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence in issue. Learned trial court also held that statement of PW1-Birbal did not disclose that on the evening of 15.2.2011 he had seen the accused going out of the Hotel and there was no evidence produced on record by the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence in issue. Besides this, learned trial court while acquitting the accused further held that serious lacuna were left in the case by the prosecution including that no finger prints were lifted from the scene of crime to establish the identity of the accused. Neither motive nor presence of accused at the scene of crime was proved. On these basis, learned trial court held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and it ordered the acquittal of accused person. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, learned trial court has erred in not appreciating that the chain of circumstances stood proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and there was no missing link connecting the accused with the murder of the deceased. As per him, the following circumstances connected the accused with the commission of the offence (I) checking in of the accused in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni; (ii) recovery of the dead body; (iii)last seen together; (iv) motive; and (v) recovery of the weapon of offence on the statement of the accused. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents, as prosecution had miserably failed to link the accused with the murder of the deceased. According to them, the circumstances neither stood established nor proved by the prosecution to link the accused with the offence alleged against them. 8. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the judgment impugned as well as record of the case. 9. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, where no eye witness was present, it has to be examined as to whether on the basis of material on record i.e., circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the offence alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 10. 9. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, where no eye witness was present, it has to be examined as to whether on the basis of material on record i.e., circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the offence alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 10. It is relevant to take note of some of the judgments passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence. In Vijay Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh , (2014) 14 SCC 609 Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that where there are no eye witness and conviction is to be passed on circumstantial evidence, then in such a case complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused persons. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. In Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh , (2011) 14 SCC 117 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof. Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ''may be'' fully established. 11. Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ''may be'' fully established. 11. The salient points which have been carved out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be brought home are as under: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ''may be'' fully 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) Thee 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. 12. Thus the settled law is, that where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence in order to base conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 13. This Court therefore has to satisfy itself as to whether by way of evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it has been able to link the accused with commission of the offence or not. 14. We will test all the circumstances enumerated by appellant vis--vis material produced on record regarding each circumstance by the prosecution separately. CIRCUMSTANCE No.1. CHECKING IN OF THE ACCUSED IN VISHAL HOTEL CHINTPURNI: 15. As per the prosecution this circumstance stood proved against the accused by PW1Birbal and PW2Kulbir. PW1Birbal, deposed in the Court that he was working in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni since January 2011. Tilak Raj was the owner of the Hotel. CIRCUMSTANCE No.1. CHECKING IN OF THE ACCUSED IN VISHAL HOTEL CHINTPURNI: 15. As per the prosecution this circumstance stood proved against the accused by PW1Birbal and PW2Kulbir. PW1Birbal, deposed in the Court that he was working in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni since January 2011. Tilak Raj was the owner of the Hotel. On 15.2.2011 the owner had gone to Haridwar and at about 3:00 p.m., accused Narender Kaur came to the Hotel with her husband and upon their demand, Room No. 516 was alloted to them. He further deposed that accused Narender Kaur made entry with regard to allotment of the room in issue. Thereafter, two boys came to the Hotel and Kulbir who was also an employee of the said Hotel allotted them Room No. 517. In his crossexamination this witness stated that the Hotel was four storeyed. He admitted it to be correct that an entry of whoever stayed in the Hotel was made in the Hotel Register. He further deposed that the employee/worker on duty had the custody of the Register. He stated that on 15.2.2011 the Register was with him. He admitted it to be correct that identity proof of person staying in the Hotel was obtained and the place of arrival and departure used to be entered in the Register. He feigned ignorance as to whether such Register was taken into possession by the Police or not. He admitted it to be correct that no such Register was shown to him in Court. He also admitted it to be correct that there used to be a Register of workers of the Hotel and said Register was also not shown to him. 16. Pw2kulbir, deposed that he was working in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni since February, 2011 and Ramesh and Birbal also worked there. On 15.2.2011, accused Jagdish and Bhupinder came to the Hotel and demanded a room. They were allotted Room No. 516 and entry to this effect was made by him. An amount of Rs. 300/ was demanded from them, but they deposited Rs. 250/only. In his cross examination, this witness deposed that the storey in which Room Nos. 516 and 517 are situated had six rooms. He further deposed that on the night of 15th February, 2011 four rooms of that storey were occupied. He further stated that he had not incorporated the entry of remaining two rooms. 250/only. In his cross examination, this witness deposed that the storey in which Room Nos. 516 and 517 are situated had six rooms. He further deposed that on the night of 15th February, 2011 four rooms of that storey were occupied. He further stated that he had not incorporated the entry of remaining two rooms. He also deposed that in one room, one family was staying whereas in other room one male and female had checked in. He also deposed that Police had demanded the said Register from him and he had handed over the same to the Police. He further deposed that no record was shown to him to prove that he was the employee of Hotel Vishal. He admitted it to be correct that when entry is entered of a visitor, then it is also mentioned that from where the visitor has come and to which place the visitor shall go and what is the purpose of his visit. Proof of identity is also entered. He admitted that no such Register was shown to him in Court. In response to a Court question, he admitted it to be correct that there was overwriting in the Register qua entry of Room No. 516. He self stated that earlier he had written incorrect room number. He also stated that there was overwriting in the mobile number which also was initially written by him incorrectly. 17. Ext. P1, the alleged guest Register maintained in the Hotel is an Exercise Note Book. First entry contained in the same is of the date 12.2.2011 and the last entry is of 15.2.2011. Perusal of the same demonstrates that on 15.2.2011, four rooms were occupied by guests. These are Room Nos. 510, 517, 516 and 520 respectively as mentioned in the Register. Room No. 510 was occupied by one Sema S/o Sh. Bikhar R/o Village Sangrur. There is overwriting in the room number of said entry. The next entry is qua Room No. 517. Time of entry is mentioned as 3:00 p.m., number of guests is mentioned as two, however, no name or address of the occupants is mentioned therein. The next entry is of Room No. 516 in the name of one Viky S/o Sh. Jora Singh R/o Village Hoshiarpur. No time is mentioned against this entry nor as to how many persons, the room was allotted. There is overwriting in the entry. The next entry is of Room No. 516 in the name of one Viky S/o Sh. Jora Singh R/o Village Hoshiarpur. No time is mentioned against this entry nor as to how many persons, the room was allotted. There is overwriting in the entry. Original numerical figure No.8 has been altered to ''6''. Similarly, there is also overwriting over the original phone number. The prosecution has not examined the owner of the Hotel to prove as to whether Ext. P1 actually was the Register of guests maintained by the Hotel Staff or not. No other employee or guest of the Hotel has been examined by the prosecution to prove that on 15.2.2011 either of the accused had actually checked into the Hotel. The socalled Register of guests Ex. P1, does not inspire confidence. Except the bald statements of PW1 and PW2, there is nothing on record to corroborate that on 15.2.2011 either of the accused had checked into the Hotel in issue. Therefore, in our considered view, this circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by the prosecution. CIRCUMSTANCE NO.2. RECOVERY OF THE DEAD BODY: 18. According to the prosecution this circumstance stood proved by PW1Birbal, PW2Kulbir, PW3Ramesh Kumar and PW4, Sanjeev Kumar. PW1, Birbal deposed in the Court that in the morning of 16.2.2011 at around 8.00 a.m., he found Room No. 516 and 517 of the Hotel locked. On his asking, Kulbir and Rimpi told him that they were not having the keys of said rooms and thereafter the Pradhan was called. The Television in Room No. 517 was switched ''on'' as also were the lights. From the curtain, they saw one person lying on the bed and blood was oozing out of his body. Police came and broke open the lock. PW1Birbal went inside the room and found that there were sharpedged weapon injury marks on the body of the deceased. He further deposed that as occupants of Room No. 516 were not in the room, he thought that they alongwith accused Narender Kaur had killed the deceased. 19. Similarly, PW2, Kulbir stated that on 16.2.2011 at around 8.00 a.m., he saw Room Nos. 516 and 517 locked. The keys of the rooms were not with them. From the window of Room No. 517 they saw that the television was ''on''. 19. Similarly, PW2, Kulbir stated that on 16.2.2011 at around 8.00 a.m., he saw Room Nos. 516 and 517 locked. The keys of the rooms were not with them. From the window of Room No. 517 they saw that the television was ''on''. They telephonically informed the owner of the Hotel and the owner informed the Police. Thereafter, Police, Pradhan and other persons came at the spot. The lock of Room No. 517 was broken and a male dead body was found on the bed, throat of which was cut and there were also injury marks on the chest. 20. Pw3ramesh Kumar stated that he was working in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni for the last three years and on 16.2.2011 he was ill and sleeping in the Hotel. Balbir came to him and demanded the keys of Room Nos. 516 and 517. He told Balbir that he was not having the keys. He found that the lights as well as television of Room No. 517 was ''on''. He further deposed that he informed the President of the Panchayat and the President informed the Police, who broke open the lock of Room No. 517 and in the room a dead body was found. 21. Pw4, Sanjeev Kumar deposed that he was President of Muin Panchayat. Vishal Hotel Chintpurni was situated within the said Panchayat. On 16.2.2011 he had gone to the said Hotel with the Police and in his presence Police had broke open the locks of Room Nos. 516 and 517. 22. A perusal of the testimony of above mentioned witnesses demonstrates that there is grave discrepancy and contradiction in their statements. Whereas as per PW1 it was he who saw from the curtain that one person was lying on the bed from whose body blood was oozing out and thereafter Police came and broke open the locks, PW2 deposed that when Rooms No. 516 and 517 were found locked and from the window of Room No. 517 they saw that television was ''on'', they informed the owner of the Hotel who telephoned the Police and then the Police and Pradhan came with other person where the lock of Room of 517 was broken. In contrast PW3 stated that it was he who informed the President of the Panchayat who thereafter informed the Police and this was followed by the Police opening the lock of Room No. 517 from where a dead body was recovered. The contradiction in the statements of above three witnesses could not be satisfactorily explained by the State. At the best, from the testimony of these three witnesses what has been proved by the prosecution is that the body of the deceased was recovered on the morning of 16.2.2011 from Room No. 517 of Vishal Hotel Chintpurni, but their testimony nowhere connects the accused with the recovery of the dead body or the killing of the deceased. 23. Pw8sukhdev Singh deposed that on 15.2.2011 between 5:30/6:00 p.m., he took the three accused to Hoshiarpur from Chintpurni bus stand. This is suggestive of the fact that accused killed Surinder in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni before they left Chintpurni bus stand between 5:30/6:00 p.m., on 15.2.2011. PW1 has deposed that he had gone to the room of Narinder Kaur at around 5:00 p.m. on 15.2.2011, when she was making a telephone call. This further demonstrates that the accused allegedly killed deceased Surinder Pal after 5:00 p.m., but before 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. The dead body of Surinder Pal was recovered on the next morning i.e., 16.2.2011 at 8:00 a.m. Neither PW1 nor PW2 have deposed that they saw either of the accused leaving the Hotel on 15.2.2011. PW17Dr. Anand Bhandari who conducted the postmortem (Ext. PW17/D) has mentioned the date of death acording to Police as 16.2.2011. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that Surinder Pal was found dead between 5:00 p.m., to 6:00 p.m. on 15.2.2011. This again demonstrates that the prosecution has not been able to connect the accused with the killing of the deceased. CIRCUMSTANCE NO.3. MOTIVE: 24. As per the prosecution, the alleged motive behind the murder of deceased Surinder Pal was the illicit relation between accused Narender Kaur and accused Jagdish. The prosecution relies upon the statement of PW6, Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased to prove this circumstance. A perusal of the statement of PW6, Gurpreet Singh, demonstrates that he deposed that on 14.2.2011 accused had gone to her aunt''s house and she came back on 18.2.2011. The prosecution relies upon the statement of PW6, Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased to prove this circumstance. A perusal of the statement of PW6, Gurpreet Singh, demonstrates that he deposed that on 14.2.2011 accused had gone to her aunt''s house and she came back on 18.2.2011. He further stated that accused Jagdish used to visit the house of accused Narender Kaur as her husband, deceased Surinder Pal, used to remain out of station being a truck driver. He also deposed that he had informed the deceased about the factum of Jagdish visiting accused Narender Kaur and Jagdish had threatened to kill the deceased. Now, incidentally in his statement he nowhere states that he had actually seen accused Jagdish Lal visiting accused Narender Kaur or when was this fact disclosed by him to the deceased or when threat was given by accused Jagdish Lal to the deceased. He deposed in his crossexamination that he had not lodged any report with regard to alleged threats given by accused Jagdish to his brother. He also stated that his brother had also not lodged any report in this regard. He also stated that no complaint etc. in this regard was lodged in the Panchayat. As far as the factum of an amount of ''49,900/ having been withdrawn by deceased Surinder Pal on 15.2.2011 from SBI, Baddi Miani and same being deposited in the account of accused Narinder Kaur is concerned, it has not been proved by the prosecution that this amount was shared by the accused. No document in this regard was produced in evidence from SBI, Baddi Miani. It has come in the statement of PW20, SI Tilak Raj that he did not produce any bank record to demonstrate that deceased had transferred an amount of Rs. 49,900/ in favour of accused Narinder Kaur. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Jagdish Lal was having illicit relation with accused Narinder Kaur and the same was the motive behind the killing of deceased Surinder Pal, nor it has been proved that any amount was deposited by deceased Surinder Pal in the account of accused Narinder Kaur which was shared by her with other accused. Thus, this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. CIRCUMSTANCE NO.4. LAST SEEN TOGETHER: 25. Thus, this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. CIRCUMSTANCE NO.4. LAST SEEN TOGETHER: 25. According to the State, it was accused Narinder Kaur who was last seen with the deceased and this circumstance stood proved by the testimony of PW1Birbal. A perusal of the statement of PW1 demonstrates that he has deposed that on 15.2.2011, accused Narinder Kaur along with deceased had checked in Vishal Hotel Chintpurni and he had allotted Room No. 517 to them. He also stated that in the evening of the said date at around 5:00 p.m. he had gone to the room and accused Narinder Kaur at the relevant time was making a telephone call. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to substantiate that other two accused at any point of time were ever seen with the accused. It is prosecution''s own case that all the three accused boarded a taxi of PW8Sukhdev Singh from Chintpurni for Hoshiarpur on 15.2.2011 between 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. However, it again is a matter of record that none has seen the accused leaving the Hotel on the evening of 15.2.2011. PW1 has not deposed that when he last saw accused Narinder Kaur, there was anything suspicious in the room. Postmortem report Ext. PW17/D reveals that as per the Police, the date of death was 16.2.2011. Prosecution has not placed any material on record to prove that the deceased was killed between 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on 15.2.2011. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved this circumstance against accused Narinder Kaur beyond all reasonable doubt. CIRCUMSTANCE NO.5. RECOVERY OF WEAPON: 26. Ex. PW7/A is the copy of disclosure statement made by accused Jagdish Lal. The same has been made in the presence of Sethi Lal and Sukhdev Singh. It is mentioned in this disclosure statement that the accused had hidden the knife i.e., the weapon of offence in bushes near one tree at Picnic Spot ahead of Gagret and he can have the same recovered. This statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the basis of said statement, recovery was made, vide recovery Memo Ext. PW7/B in the presence of witnesses Sethi Lal and Sukhdev Singh, respectively on 6.3.2011. 27. This statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the basis of said statement, recovery was made, vide recovery Memo Ext. PW7/B in the presence of witnesses Sethi Lal and Sukhdev Singh, respectively on 6.3.2011. 27. It is settled law that with regard to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 28. In this case the discovery of the alleged weapon of offence based upon the disclosure statement of the accused is highly suspicious. PW7Sethi Lal has been examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery of knife Ext.50 which recovery was effected at the instance of the accused. This witness deposed that he and Sukhdev Singh were associated with the Police during the course of investigation on 6.3.2011. Accused had disclosed to the Police that he had hidden the knife in the bushes near one Khair Tree near Thind Picnic Spot and he could effect the recovery of knife. Thereafter, memo Ext. PW7/A was prepared and accused led to the recovery of knife vide recovery memo Ext.PW7/B. 29. A perusal of cross examination of PW7 demonstrates that he admitted that he was informed by the Police that certain articles were to recover by the Police and he has to accompany them. Similarly, PW8Sukhdev Singh the other witness has also admitted that on 5.3.2011, he was asked by the Police to come on the next day i.e., 6.3.2011 to effect certain recoveries. Neither the statement of PW7Sethi Lal nor the statement of PW8Sukhdev Singh who were witnesses to both i.e., disclosure statement as also the alleged recovery of weapon of offence inspires confidence. In fact, their credibility stands impeached during the course of crossexamination. Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of establishing a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. In fact, their credibility stands impeached during the course of crossexamination. Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of establishing a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. 30. The above discussion, therefore, demonstrates that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of the offence alleged against them. Each circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused so as to eradicate all other views save and except that it were the accused who had committed the offence. All these aspects of the matter have been minutely gone into by the learned trial court. After taking into consideration the statements of prosecution witnesses as also the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, learned trial court has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. It is settled law that findings of acquittal are not to be ordinarily set aside in appeal, until and unless such findings are totally perverse. In our considered view, the findings returned by learned trial court in the present case are neither perverse nor a result of misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. On the contrary, we find that the findings returned are duly borne out from the record and we also concur with the same. Therefore, as there is no infirmity with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, this Court while concurring with the findings so returned by the learned trial Court, dismisses this appeal being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.