JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Masooq Ali @ Bangali and Mohammad Akram @ Akku @ Kala Gitta, both residents of Ward No.16, Mangrole, District Baran have preferred two separate appeals bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No.512/2014 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.567/2014 to challenge the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2014 rendered by the Court of Sessions, Baran whereby both the accused-appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. The Court of Sessions, Baran vide a separate order of even date sentenced both the appellants as under:- “U/s. 302 r.w. 34 IPC Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.” 2. In the present appeals listed before us, it is prayed that conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded and pronounced by the trial Judge be set aside. Since both the appeals have been filed against the common judgment, they shall be decided together. 3. Case of the prosecution, as it emerges in the charge framed against both the appellants, is that on the intervening night of 29.3.2011 and 30.3.2011 sometime after 8.00 PM, both the accused committed murder of Rizwan Ali and thus, committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 or 302/34 IPC. 4. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex.P.2) presented by Abdul Hakim (PW.2), father of deceased Rizwan Ali. The said written report (Ex.P.2) was submitted before Rohit Kumar (PW.21) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Mangrole. 5. Rohit Kumar (PW.21) in court stated that on 30.3.2011 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Mangrole. Complainant Abdul Hakim (PW.2) on the same date at 10.30 AM appeared before him and presented written report (Ex.P.2). The said report when translated into English reads as under:- “To, SHO Sahib, P.S. Mangrole Sub.: For registration of case and initiating legal proceedings. Sir, It is submitted that yesterday on 29.3.2011 at 8.00 PM my son Rizwan Ali aged 13 years after taking meals had gone out of the house to play. In the night he had not returned. I and my family members extensively searched for him, but we could not get any clue. We sought information from the relatives on mobile, but whereabouts of my son were not known. In the night my son Rizwan Ali had not returned. In the night he had not returned. I and my family members extensively searched for him, but we could not get any clue. We sought information from the relatives on mobile, but whereabouts of my son were not known. In the night my son Rizwan Ali had not returned. Today on 30.3.2011, I and other family members again searched for him, but no information has received. At about 9.00 AM we learnt that near Meethe Kua in a garden dead body of my son Rizwan Ali is lying, upon which I, my sons Zakir Hussain, Shahjad and other residents of Mohallah went to the garden and found that dead body of my son Rizwan Ali was lying in the garden soaked in blood. Somebody had hit him with a big round stone and had caused his murder. Yesterday evening my son Shahjad Ali and Masooq Ali s/o Usman Ali, resident of Mangrole at about 4.00 PM had quarreled. He had given a threat to commit murder of my son. I have a suspicion that my son Rizwan Ali has been killed by Masooq Ali yesterday in the night in the garden of Meethe Kua. Report is presented. Legal action be taken. Sd/ Abdul Hakim s/o Jumma Ji Date: 30/03/2011” 6. On the basis of above said written report (Ex.P.2), a formal FIR (Ex.P.23) bearing No.56/11 was registered at Police Station Mangrole for offence under Section 302 IPC. From perusal of written report (Ex.P.2), it is apparent that none had seen the occurrence. In the written report (Ex.P.2) a suspicion has been expressed that due to a quarrel on previous day at 4.00 PM, Masooq Ali may have committed the murder. On the basis of suspicion, on 2.4.2011 at 7.15 PM Masooq Ali was arrested vide memo (Ex.P.10). On 3.4.2011 at 7.30 PM vide memo (Ex.P.11), Mohammad Akram was arrested. 7. Prosecution, in order to secure conviction of the appellants, examined 21 witnesses, namely Naushad Ali (PW.1), Abdul Hakim (PW.2), Zakir Hussain (PW.3), (there is no statement of PW.4 on record), Mohammad Kaleem (PW.5), Mohammad Ishaq (PW.6), Shahjad (PW.7), Shri Krishna (PW.8), Mohammad Ahsan (PW.9), Gafooran Bai (PW.10), Iqbal Hussain (PW.11), Shokat Ali (PW.12), Omprakash (PW.13), Rakesh (PW.14), Ghanshyam (PW.15), Dr. Omprakash Malav (PW.16), Umar Daraj Ali (PW.17), Mohan Chand (PW.18), Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.19), Deshraj (PW.20) and Rohit Kumar (PW.21). 8. Omprakash Malav (PW.16), Umar Daraj Ali (PW.17), Mohan Chand (PW.18), Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.19), Deshraj (PW.20) and Rohit Kumar (PW.21). 8. Case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of solitary eye-witness Naushad Ali (PW.1). Prosecution has examined relations of the deceased, namely Abdul Hakim (PW.2), Mohammad Kaleem (PW.5), Mohammad Ishaq (PW.6), Shahjad (PW.7), to prove motive. 9. Before we refer to the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding motive, testimony of solitary eye-witness, witnesses to recovery, it will be necessary for us to notice medical evidence at the first instance. 10. Dr. Omprakash Malav (PW.16) on 30.3.2011 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rizwan Ali, aged 13 years. Dr. Omprakash Malav (PW.16) in court deposed that vide Exhibit-P.14 he alongwith Dr. Sitaram Verma conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rizwan Ali. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P.14), seven injuries were noted on the person of deceased. As per opinion of the medical board, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. Since it is not disputed that Rizwan Ali had died because of violence, we shall not notice the injuries in the judgment. 11. Suffice it to say, injuries No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been caused by incised weapon and injuries No.3 and 7 were bruises. Doctor, on internal examination, noted fracture of occipital and frontal bone. 12. Now, first we shall notice the evidence of motive. 13. Abdul Hakim (PW.2) in court stated that on 29.3.2011 Masooq Ali had gone to the shop of his son Shahjad to recharge his phone, upon which his son told the accused that he should not come to his shop. The accused, on this, started abusing on the name of parents and followed his son upon which Shahjad brought him on the motorcycle. The witness stated that his son has been killed by Masooq Ali and Akram. 14. Mohammad Kaleem (PW.5) stated that in his shop Shahjad Ali is having a vend for sale of mobile. In his presence Masooq Ali accused came and told Shahjad to upload the balance in his mobile, upon which Shahjad told that we are having an old grudge with you, therefore, you should not come to our shop, thereupon Masooq Ali gave abuses and gave a threat that he will cause murder. Thereafter the accused went away by giving abuses. In his presence Masooq Ali accused came and told Shahjad to upload the balance in his mobile, upon which Shahjad told that we are having an old grudge with you, therefore, you should not come to our shop, thereupon Masooq Ali gave abuses and gave a threat that he will cause murder. Thereafter the accused went away by giving abuses. At 4.30 PM Masooq Ali while smoking cigarette, told that he will teach a lesson. The witness stated that the accused had come to the shop of Shahjad in the morning at 9.00 AM. 15. Mohammad Ishaq (PW.6) stated that he was sitting on the shop when Masooq Ali came and asked Shahjad to upload balance in the mobile phone. In examination-in-chief the witness stated that Irfan, younger brother of Shahjad, is married with his daughter Shahjad Bano. 16. Shahjad (PW.7) is prime witness regarding motive. He deposed in court that they are five brothers, out of which Rizwan Ali is youngest. On 29.3.2011 at 9.00 AM he was sitting at his shop. At that time Mohammad Ishaq (PW.6) and Mohammad Kaleem (PW.5) were present. After about half an hour accused Masooq Ali came and asked him to upload balance on his mobile phone upon which he told that since they are having a grudge, he should not come to the shop. Thereafter Masooq started abusing and threatened Shahjad to come out of the shop, he will kill him. People had gathered. Masooq Ali asked for iron rod. The witness stated that Rizwan Ali came to the shop at around 12.00 PM and he went to his house to take his lunch. At 3.00 PM the witness sent Rizwan Ali to the house and himself sat at the shop. On the same night at about 7.00-7.30 PM son of owner of the shop, Kaleem Ahmad (PW.5), told that Masooq Ali is in search of him and is smoking cigarette. The witness stated that he called his elder brother and went with him. While they were going, Masooq was staring at them. In the night at 11.00 PM when he went to the house after walk, he learnt that his brother Rizwan had not returned to the house. 17. Zakir Hussain (PW.3) had attested the inquest and memos whereby recoveries were affected from the spot. While they were going, Masooq was staring at them. In the night at 11.00 PM when he went to the house after walk, he learnt that his brother Rizwan had not returned to the house. 17. Zakir Hussain (PW.3) had attested the inquest and memos whereby recoveries were affected from the spot. The witness stated that in his presence police took into possession stone and soil from the spot. This witness stated that in his presence, police had also taken clothes and Hawai Chappal of the deceased. The witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. 18. In cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, the witness deposed about the motive also on the same lines as stated by other witnesses. 19. Gafooran Bai (PW.10) mother of the deceased stated that last year on the day of occurrence she was at her house. At 1.00 PM Rizwan Ali came to house after studying and went to the shop. He returned from the shop to the house at 6.00 PM. After taking meals he left the house at 8.00 PM. In the night Shahjad Ali had returned, but Rizwan Ali had not returned. 20. Shokat Ali (PW.12) also attested the inquest (Ex.P.6). He is also witness to recovery of articles from the place of occurrence. This witness also witnessed the spot being photographed. Constable Shri Krishna (PW.8) deposed that on 2.4.2011 Masooq Ali was arrested. He further deposed that on 3.4.2011 Mohammad Akram was also arrested. Masooq Ali on 4.4.2011 from his house got recovered wooden log. 21. Mohammad Ahsan (PW.9) had attested inquest (Ex.P.6). 22. Iqbal Hussain (PW.11) also attested inquest (Ex.P.6). 23. Constable Omprakash (PW.13) had carried articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. 24. Rakesh (PW.14) had taken photographs of the spot. 25. Ghanshyam (PW.15) was HC-cum-Incharge of Malkhana. He proved deposition of articles in the Malkhana and their onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 26. Umardaraj Ali (PW.17) stated that in his presence on 30.3.2011 Abdul Hakim (PW.2) presented written report (Ex.P.2) before the SHO. 27. ASI Mohan Chand (PW.18) stated that he received written report (Ex.P.2) from the SHO on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.23) was recorded. 28. Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.19) was also posted as Head Mohrir Malkhana. He handed over eight sealed packets to Constable Omprakash (PW.13) to be deposited in FSL. 29. 27. ASI Mohan Chand (PW.18) stated that he received written report (Ex.P.2) from the SHO on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.23) was recorded. 28. Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.19) was also posted as Head Mohrir Malkhana. He handed over eight sealed packets to Constable Omprakash (PW.13) to be deposited in FSL. 29. Constable Deshraj (PW.20) in court deposed that the accused Masooq Ali got recovered wooden log from his house. 30. Rohit Kumar (PW.21) being Investigating Officer proved various facets of investigation. 31. Now, we shall come to the testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1) 32. Naushad Ali (PW.1) stated that on the day of occurrence in March, 2011 at about 7.00 PM he had gone towards Meethe Kuan in the garden. There Masooq Ali met him and told him that your friend Rizzu be taken in the garden for dinner. The witness stated that he went for search of Rizzu. He found him at the shop of Mamu. He took Rizzu in the garden from there. In the garden Akram and Masooq Ali were standing. He went alongwith Rizzu. Akram caught hold of neck of Rizzu and Masooq started beating him. On their doing so, he interrupted them, upon which they told the witness that he will also be killed, upon which he went to the picture hall leaving Rizzu there. After movie finished at 9.30 PM he kept sitting at the shop of Mamu for 5–10 minutes and at another shop till 1.30 AM. In the morning he learnt that Rizzu was killed. Due to fear he had not narrated the incident to anybody as Akram had already committed a murder in Kota. The witness stated that his statement (Ex.P.1) was recorded before the Magistrate. 33. In cross-examination the witness stated that he knew Rizzu from childhood as he is son of his distant maternal uncle. The witness stated that all his family members are residing in one house and they all are having common meals. The witness stated that the house in which they are residing is near the house where Rizzu and his family members are residing. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence he returned from Itawa at 5.00-5.30 PM. The witness stated that he had taken Rizwan towards the garden at 8.30 PM. The witness admitted that the shop of his maternal uncle is at a distance of 5–6 furlong. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence he returned from Itawa at 5.00-5.30 PM. The witness stated that he had taken Rizwan towards the garden at 8.30 PM. The witness admitted that the shop of his maternal uncle is at a distance of 5–6 furlong. The witness admitted that on the day of occurrence tailors of the city had arranged for the dinner in the garden near Meethe Kua and the tailors were 50–60 in number. The witness in court stated, ^^;g lgh gS esjh mu yksxksa esa ls fdlh ls ckrphr ugha gq;h] gedks fdlh us ugha ns[kk Fkk] u gh geus mulsa feyus dh dksf'k'k dh^^ - The witness after the incident had returned to his house. The witness stated in court that the fact that he was threatened by the accused was not disclosed by him to anybody in the family. The witness stated that he narrated the incident after three days. Relevant portion of cross-examination of the witness reads as under:- ^^esjs dks /kedh nh o fjTtw dk xyk nck;k rks ;g ckr eSus ?kj ij tkdj fdlh dks ugh crk;h Fkh] fQj rhu fnu ckn ;g ckr crk;h Fkh^^ 34. The witness admitted that no acquaintance of him met him in the picture hall. The witness stated that he returned to the house at 10.30 PM. His family members were not present. Only mother was present. He had not disclosed the incident to his family members. The witness admitted to be correct that in the night family members of Rizzu were searching for Rizzu and they also asked him about Rizzu, but he had not disclosed any fact to them. Relevant lines from cross-examination of the witness reads as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fjTtw ds ifjtu mldksa jkr esa ryk'k dj jgs Fks] esjs ls Hkh fjTtw ds ckcr iwNk FkkA rc eSus mudksa Hkh dksbZ ckr ugha crk;h FkhA eS ?kj ij tkrs gh jkr 10-30 cts lks x;k FkkA^^ 35. The witness admitted to be correct that on the next day his grandfather, grandmother and parents met him, but he had not disclosed them about the death of Rizzu and the fact that he was threatened. The witness admitted to be correct that on the next day his grandfather, grandmother and parents met him, but he had not disclosed them about the death of Rizzu and the fact that he was threatened. It will be apposite here to reproduce the exact words of the witness as under:- ^^;g lgh gS nwljs fnu ?kj ij nknk&nknh] ekrk&firk lc yksx feys Fks] eSus lqcg Hkh bu yksxksa dks fjTtw dks ekjus o eq>s /kedkus okyh ckr ugha crk;h Fkh] eSus fjTtw ds HkkbZ cfgu] ekrk&firk dks Hkh fjTtw ds ckcr ugha crk;k fd mldh ckx esa eqfYteku us fiVkbZ dh Fkh^^ 36. The witness stated that he narrated the incident after five days of the occurrence, ^^eSusa ?kVuk ckcr ik¡p fnu ckn crk;k FkkA ;g lgh gS eS bu ik¡p fnu rd ekaxjksy gh jgk Fkk vkSj bu ik¡p fnuksa esa ?kVuk ckcr~ fdlh dks dqN ugha crk;k FkkA^^ - The witness stated that he had gone to the burial of Rizzu. 100-200 persons have gathered there, but he had not narrated the incident to them. The witness stated that on the third day condolence meeting was performed at the house of Rizzu, but there also he did not narrate the incident to anybody. The witness admitted to be correct that on the next day of the occurrence he was apprehended by the police and for 1½ or 2 days he was kept in the police station. The exact words of the witness are as under:- ^^;g lgh gs tc eS bVkok ls vk;k rks iqfyl us nwljs fnu gh eq>s idM+ fy;k Fkk vkSj Ms<+&nks fnu rd mlh ekeysa esa eq>s Fkkus ij j[kkA^^ 37. The witness stated that after he disclosed the occurrence to the police, the police had taken him to the Magistrate for recording of his statement. The witness admitted it to be correct that he is facing 5–7 criminal cases. The witness admitted that he was often called by the police for interrogation. The witness also admitted that he had also absconded from the Jail once. The witness admitted it to be correct that he is facing 5–7 criminal cases. The witness admitted that he was often called by the police for interrogation. The witness also admitted that he had also absconded from the Jail once. Concluding portion of cross-examination of the witness reads as under:- ^^;g lgh gS esjs Åij 5&7 eqdnesa NksVs&eksVsa py jgs gS] eq>s iqfyl okys pksjh vkfn gksus ij iwNrkN ds fy;s cqyk ysrs FksA eS bl izdj.k esa cPpksa okyh tsy esa Hkh jgk FkkA eSa ,d ckj tsy ls Hkkx x;k FkkA esjs fo:) lkjs izdj.k pksjh ds gh FksA^^ 37. Having noted the evidence of solitary eye-witness, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. 38. Shri Nawal Singh Sikarwar, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the appellant Masooq Ali is having criminal antecedents and it has come in evidence that he was also earlier tried for murder. Therefore, it is contended that Naushad Ali (PW.1) due to fear had not disclosed the incident to anybody. Learned counsel has contended that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1). It is further contended that relations of the deceased have also proved motive. Thus, in the present case prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of murder against the accused-appellants. 39. Shri Reashm Bhargava learned counsel for appellant Masooq Ali and Shri Sajid Ali learned counsel appearing for accused Mohammad Akram @ Akku @ Kala Gatta have contended that Naushad Ali (PW.1) is totally unreliable witness and his testimony cannot be taken into consideration. 40. It is well settled legal proposition that the court insist for quality of evidence and not upon quantity of the witnesses. As to how the evidence of solitary eye-witness is to be appreciated, the Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.), qua solitary eye-witness, had laid following rules of appreciation of evidence:- “Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:- (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 41. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” 42. Relying upon the above observations of the Supreme Court, we have to determine whether Naushad Ali (PW.1) can be determined as a wholly reliable or partly reliable or partly unreliable or wholly unreliable witness. 43. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 29.3.2011 and 30.3.2011. As per testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1) he had taken deceased Rizwan Ali to the garden near Meethe Kua before 9.30 PM as it has come in evidence of Naushad Ali (PW.1) that after the incident he had gone to see movie and returned from the picture hall at 9.30 PM and thereafter at 10.30 PM he slept in his house. 44. As per testimony of Rohit Kumar (PW.21), Investigating Officer, statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 4.4.2011. It is also admitted by Naushad Ali (PW.1) in court that for five days he had not narrated the incident to anybody. 44. As per testimony of Rohit Kumar (PW.21), Investigating Officer, statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 4.4.2011. It is also admitted by Naushad Ali (PW.1) in court that for five days he had not narrated the incident to anybody. Naushad Ali (PW.1) in court stated that immediately after the incident, he was taken into police custody. He remained in police custody for 1½ or 2 days. In police custody also he did not narrate the incident to the police. Statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been exhibited. Therefore, this court cannot accept at face value that statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) was recorded on 4.4.2011, as stated by the Investigating Officer, it may have been recorded later, if we refer to the date of recording of statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 45. Be that as it may, statement of Naushad Ali (PW.1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.4.2011, i.e. after 21 days of the occurrence. Naushad Ali (PW.1) has admitted he is well versed with criminal litigation. As per his statement, he is involved in 4–5 criminal cases. He has once absconded from the Jail. Thus, we cannot rule out that Naushad Ali (PW.1) was introduced as an eye-witness at a highly belated stage. It has come in evidence that Rizwan Ali deceased is known to him from the childhood. He is his cousin as he is son of his distant maternal uncle. In further cross-examination, Naushad Ali (PW.1) stated that the deceased was son of his real maternal uncle. We reproduce the following portion from beginning of cross-examination of the witness as under:- ^^eSa fjTtw dks cpiu ls tkurk gwa] og esjk HkkbZ yxrk gS] tks nwj ds ekek dk cPPkk gSA ;g lgh gS fjTtw esjs lxs ekek dk csVk gSA^^ 46. The witness further stated to be correct that they were staying together, ^^;g lgh gS ge nksuksa lkFk&2 gh jgrs gSA^^ . The witness in cross-examination admitted that he has a large family which includes parents, brothers, sisters, grandfather. The witness admitted that he had not narrated the incident even though family members of Rizwan had asked him about the whereabouts of Rizwan. Long silence for five days speak volumes. We cannot accept that due to fear the witness remained silent. The witness in cross-examination admitted that he has a large family which includes parents, brothers, sisters, grandfather. The witness admitted that he had not narrated the incident even though family members of Rizwan had asked him about the whereabouts of Rizwan. Long silence for five days speak volumes. We cannot accept that due to fear the witness remained silent. It has come in evidence that the witness had attended burial ceremony of Rizwan Ali where 100-200 persons have gathered. The witness was staying with the family. Had Naushad Ali (PW.1) witnessed the occurrence, he would have narrated the occurrence immediately. We cannot become oblivious to the fact that Masooq Ali was arrested on 2.4.2011, whereas Mohammad Akram was arrested on 3.4.2011. The accused were already in police custody. Fear, if any, no longer persisted. Naushad Ali (PW.1) as per his own admission, had also remained in police station for 1½ or 2 days. Therefore, we cannot subscribe to the excuse put forward by the witness that he was under fear. The only inference which we can draw is that later Naushad Ali (PW.1) being a close relation was introduced as an eye-witness due to suspicion expressed in the written report (Ex.P.2) against the appellants. Naushad Ali (PW.1) himself was a suspect. It was but natural for him to involve others to exculpate himself. From narration of testimony we find that 47. Naushad Ali (PW.1) was a suspect of the crime. On asking of accused he had taken deceased to the garden. He facilitated his murder. If that is so, he should have been treated as a approver. It is well settled legal proposition that approver has a tendency to exculpate himself by putting a blame on others. Therefore, qua each material fact, the approver is required to be corroborated. In the present case, neither any corroboration is coming forward to the testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1), nor he was declared as approver. 48. Out of seven injuries found on the person of deceased, five are incised. Prosecution has affected recovery of wooden log at the instance of Masooq Ali from his house. In the present case, there is no motive qua Mohammad Akram accused. The witness stated that injuries were caused by wooden log, whereas five injuries out of seven injuries were found incised. Having examined from any angle, we find testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1) to be wholly unreliable. In the present case, there is no motive qua Mohammad Akram accused. The witness stated that injuries were caused by wooden log, whereas five injuries out of seven injuries were found incised. Having examined from any angle, we find testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1) to be wholly unreliable. Therefore, we shall exclude deposition of Naushad Ali (PW.1) from consideration. 49. Once we do so, we are left with the story of motive only. 50. Regarding motive, Shahjad (PW.7) with whom accused had an altercation, he has not been touched by the accused appellant. 51. Be that as it may, only story of motive and antecedents of the accused and recovery of weapon, which itself is doubtful so far causing of injuries is concerned, are not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the occurrence has been committed by the accused-appellants alone and none else. After having discarded the testimony of Naushad Ali (PW.1), we find that remnants of the prosecution evidence are too weak to sustain conviction of the accused-appellants. 52. Consequently, we accept both the appeals preferred by Masooq Ali @ Bangali and Mohammad Akram @ Akku @ Kala Gitta. Conviction and sentence imposed upon them is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt. 53. Both the appellants, who are in custody, if not required in any other case, be set at liberty forthwith by the trial court after complying with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 54. A copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent back to the trial court forthwith to comply with the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 55. In the present case, Rizwan Ali, deceased, aged 13 years, son of the complainant Abdul Hakim (PW.2) has died. Therefore, we are of the view that under Section 357-A Cr.P.C., legal heirs of deceased Rizwan Ali are entitled to compensation. A bare reading of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. makes it apparent that award of compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased is not dependent upon conviction or acquittal. Even in a case of acquittal, for rehabilitation of family of the victim, Court can recommend compensation. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. manifest intention of the legislature. 56. Even in a case of acquittal, for rehabilitation of family of the victim, Court can recommend compensation. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. manifest intention of the legislature. 56. Thus, in these circumstances, we direct the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to disburse compensation to family members of the deceased Rizwan Ali in consonance with Victim Compensation Scheme framed by the State of Rajasthan. 57. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur, for disbursement of compensation.