Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1101 (RAJ)

Abu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-11

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 58/2009: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- Six Months’ Additional Simple Imprisonment Under Section 342 IPC Six Months R.I. - - All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Facts in brief are that one Prahlad Ram (P.W.9) lodged a written report (Ex. P/4) before SHO, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner on 09.05.2009 at 12.15 pm. alleging inter alia that on the previous night at about 11 o’ clock, his brother Hadman and his wife Smt. Jethi Devi were proceeding towards Jethi Devi’s maternal home situated in the village Daiya when Abu Singh came across them and tried to stop Hadman for consuming liquor. However, Hadman did not pay heed and continued on his way upon which, Abu Singh, Gordhan Singh and Pappu Singh forced him to stay back. Hadman’s wife Smt. Jethi proceeded to her Peehar at Village Daiya and told her brother of these happenings. During this interval, the first informant also claims to have reached the village Daiya. He and the other family members, went to the place of the occurrence and requested Abu Singh, Gordhan Singh and Pappu Singh to spare Hadman but they insisted that they would consume liquor and then leave him at the Panchayat in the morning. The accused tied his brother up with a rope and forcibly confined him. The first informant and his companions were threatened that they should go away or else they would also meet the same fate. They got frightened and came back. In the morning, Sukhlal told him that Hadman is lying just near the place where three assailants had tied him up. The first informant then approached the officers of Police Station Gangashahar to report the matter. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 87/2009 was registered at the Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 of the IPC and usual investigation was carried out. The first informant then approached the officers of Police Station Gangashahar to report the matter. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 87/2009 was registered at the Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323/34 of the IPC and usual investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the statements of Smt. Jethi Devi (wife of the deceased) and Jeetu Ram (son of the deceased) were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Both of them posed to be the eye-witnesses claimed that Prahlad Ram had also come to the village Daiya and he and Sukhlal had also witnessed the entire sequence of events. Dr. Rahul Jain (P.W.11) carried out autopsy on dead body of Hadman and noticed numerous abrasions thereupon. Ligature marks were seen on the right and left forearms above the wrists. Multiple sub-scalp haematoma as well as subdural hemorrhages were noticed underneath the head injuries which were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused were arrested and it is alleged that in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused Abu Singh to the I.O. Devendra Singh (P.W.10) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a blood stained lathi was recovered from his house. While conducting site inspection, the I.O. claims to have recovered a blood stained rope lying inside the house of Abu Singh. The investigation was concluded and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the three accused appellants herein for the offences under Sections 342 and 302/34 of the IPC. Since the offences were Sessions Triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner for trial. Charges were framed against the accused for the above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case for oblique motive. After hearing and considering the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above vide the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2012. After hearing and considering the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above vide the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2012. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri D.K. Godara, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Pappu Singh and Shri N.K. Gurjar, Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused appellants Abu Singh and Goverdhan Singh, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is founded on unreliable and cooked up evidence of partisan witnesses. The first information report itself is a fabricated document. They urged that the first informant Prahlad Ram, who was a resident of Village Sindhu had no occasion to be at the village Daiya on the fateful night and that the other prosecution eye-witnesses have given false evidence to prove his presence in the village Daiya. In this regard, they drew the Court’s attention to the statement of P.W.7 Jeetu Ram the son of the deceased who clearly stated that his mama Sukhlal gave information of the incident to Prahlad Ram on phone. He urged that this categoric statement of Jeetu Ram, in his examination in chief, completely demolishes the prosecution case as portrayed in the FIR that Prahalad Ram was an eye-witness to the incident. As per them, if the first information report itself is treated to be a fabricated document, manifestly, the entire prosecution case would come under a cloud of doubt. They further urged that the so-called eye-witness Sukhlal brother of Smt. Jethi Devi and brother-in-law of Hadman, who is a resident of village Daiya, would have been a prime witness to prove the case of the prosecution but he was not examined in evidence for unexplained reasons and thus, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution. They further contended that the conduct of the so-called eye-witnesses Smt. Jethi, Sukhlal and Jeetu Ram in failing to take help of their neighbours during the entire night for saving Hadman from the clutches of the accused and in not raising a hue and cry despite having seen the assault being made by the accused upon Shri Hadman, also casts a grave doubt on the veracity of their claim that they had actually seen the incident. The SHO, Police Station Gangashahar reached the village Daiya in the morning and he carried the dead body of Hadman to the hospital. As per the learned defence counsel, if at all Smt. Jethi, Sukhlal, Prahlad and Jeetu Ram had actually seen the assault being made on the deceased, then they would not have remained mute spectators even after the arrival of police to the village and would have reported the matter immediately. They urged that the significant delay occasioned in lodging of the FIR was used to concoct and cook up a fabricated story implicating the accused appellants in the crime on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises simply because the dead body of Hadman was recovered near the residences of the three accused appellants. They contended that Hadman was having a criminal background and had been convicted for murder. He had been released a few days before the incident and thus, in all probability, the family of the victim whom Hadman had murdered would be carrying a grudge against him and that they might be responsible for the murder of Hadman. They further urged that the alleged recoveries of the lathi made at the instance of Abu Singh and the rope made from his house are also fabricated and concocted. Furthermore, as per them, numerous other persons were residing in the house of Abu Singh and thus, since he was not having the absolute domain over the premises, the incriminating recoveries cannot be attributed exclusively to him. They thus implored the Court to discard the fabricated testimony of eye-witnesses and acquit the accused appellants by giving them benefit of doubt while accepting the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He urged that Prahlad Ram was in a routine habit of going to the village Daiya and thus, his presence at the scene of the occurrence on the fateful night is perfectly natural. He further urged that there was no such animosity between the parties which could have motivated Smt. Jethi Devi and Jeetu Ram, being the wife and son respectively of the deceased, to falsely implicate the accused appellants for the murder of Hadman Ram. He further urged that there was no such animosity between the parties which could have motivated Smt. Jethi Devi and Jeetu Ram, being the wife and son respectively of the deceased, to falsely implicate the accused appellants for the murder of Hadman Ram. He further contended that evidence of these witnesses is absolutely natural and trustworthy and their hesitation in not raising a hue and cry and in not trying to make efforts for saving the deceased is indeed explainable because the village where they reside is dominated by Rajput community from which the accused hail. No villager of other communities more particularly the downtrodden section to which the witnesses belong, would have the courage to speak out against the accused persons and as such, when the three accused appellants started assaulting Hadman, his wife Smt. Jethi and son Jeetu were left paralyzed by fear and could not take any steps to save Hadman. He further urged that the recovery of the blood stained lathi and the blood stained rope made at the instance of the accused Abu Singh and from his house respectively, amply corroborate the evidence of the prosecution eye witnesses and thus, as per him, this Court should not feel persuaded to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Firstly, we proceed to consider the rival contentions regarding the genuineness of the first informant’s version that he saw the incident with his own eyes and the veracity of the FIR. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that the witness Prahlad Ram (P.W.9) is a permanent resident of village Sindhu and at the time of the incident, he was residing at Gangashahar which is at a distance of 25 Kms. from the village Daiya where the incident took place. He was put a specific question in cross-examination regarding his claim of being present at the village Daiya at the odd hours on the fateful night but could not offer any satisfactory explanation. Thus, the unexplained presence of Prahlad Ram in the village Daiya at the odd hours of night when the incident took place is absolutely unnatural. He was put a specific question in cross-examination regarding his claim of being present at the village Daiya at the odd hours on the fateful night but could not offer any satisfactory explanation. Thus, the unexplained presence of Prahlad Ram in the village Daiya at the odd hours of night when the incident took place is absolutely unnatural. Furthermore, the conduct of Prahlad Ram in having knowledge of the alleged assault and despite that, not taking any step to save his brother Hadman Ram from the clutches of the accused by raising a hue and cry or for reporting the matter to the police, brings his claim of being an eye-witness to the incident under a serious cloud of doubt. The issue regarding Prahlad Ram not being at the scene of the occurrence and being a cooked up eye-witness, is laid to rest beyond all pale of doubt when we peruse the statement of the child witness Jeetu Ram (P.W.7) being the son of the deceased, who in his examination-in-chief, stated that his Mama Sukhlal informed about the incident to his Taau Prahald Ram. It is also mentioned in the FIR drafted by Prabhulal that Sukhlal told him in the morning that the dead body of Hadman Ram was lying at the spot. Manifestly, if Prahlad Ram was already present in the village Daiya and was an eye-witness, then there was no occasion for Sukhlal to inform him of these facts. There is another serious contradiction in the evidence of Prahlad Ram vis-a-vis, the statement of the SHO Devendra (P.W.10) which totally destroys the trustworthiness of his version. Prahlad Ram claimed that in the morning after the incident, he could arrange for a vehicle at about 10 O’clock whereafter Hadman Ram was taken to the PBM Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors. He claimed in his evidence that the police arrived after Hadman Ram had been declared dead at the hospital. On the contrary, P.W.10 Devendra Singh being the SHO, Police Station Naya Shahar stated that information was received at the Police Station Gangashahar from the village Daiya that some person had been murdered. For verifying the said information, the SHO alongwith his staff reached the village Daiya in the morning of 10.05.2009 and undertook the necessary formalities. Photographs of the place of incident were snapped and the dead body was sent to the hospital. For verifying the said information, the SHO alongwith his staff reached the village Daiya in the morning of 10.05.2009 and undertook the necessary formalities. Photographs of the place of incident were snapped and the dead body was sent to the hospital. In his cross-examination, the I.O. stated that Prahlad Ram met him when he reached the Village Daiya where. Prahlad Ram totally denied the arrival of police at the village, but on the contrary, Devendra Singh stated that he found Prahlad Ram present when he reached the village Daiya. The I.O. categorically stated that he accompanied the dead body but Prahlad Ram did not give him any report at that time. The First Information Report was submitted by Shri Prahlad Ram to him at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner as late as at 12.15 pm. Manifestly thus, the claim of Prahlad Ram that he had seen the incident is contradicted in material particulars by the other attending and clinching circumstances which we have narrated above. Apparently, he was informed of the incident telephonically by Sukhram and arrived at the village Daiya on the morning after the incident. This significant failure on the part of Prahlad Ram in lodging a prompt report to the SHO Devendra Singh at the village Daiya creates a serious doubt on the veracity of his version that he or the other family members of Hadman saw the incident happening with their own eyes. Likewise, the failure of Sukhlal, Jethi & Jeetu in lodging a report to the SHO who had reached the village Daiya in the morning, brings their claim of being eyewitnesses under a grave cloud of doubt. While appreciating evidence, it is a cardinal principle that “witness may lie but the circumstances never lie”. All these circumstances considered in totality convince us beyond all manner of doubt that the first informant Prahlad Ram did not see the incident and the theory put-forth by him in the belated FIR that he reached the village Daiya during the night and saw a part of the incident happening with his own eyes, is totally cooked up. He definitely, was not an eye-witness of the incident and the entire story as put-forth in the belated FIR appears to have been contrived with consultation of family members after receiving the tentative medical opinion of the doctors at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner. He definitely, was not an eye-witness of the incident and the entire story as put-forth in the belated FIR appears to have been contrived with consultation of family members after receiving the tentative medical opinion of the doctors at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner. It appears that the witness must have come to know about the presence of rope marks on the wrists of the deceased at the hospital and that is why, the allegation of binding the hands of the deceased with a rope was incorporated in the FIR so as to match it with the medical opinion. Once, we have discarded the evidence of the first informant and having held that the FIR is by itself a bundle of lies, we are left with the testimony of Smt. Jethi Devi (P.W.5) and Jeetu Ram (P.W.7). At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the prosecution did not examine the star-witness Sukhlal (brother of Smt. Jethi Devi) in evidence and thus, undoubtedly adverse inference needs to be drawn against it for withholding a material witness. On a close scrutiny of the statements of Jethi Devi (P.W.5) and Jeetu Ram (P.W.7), it is manifest that both these witnesses, did not project any concrete theory of enmity existing inter-se between the accused and the deceased which could have provided motive to the accused party for murdering Shri Hadman Ram. A general and vague allegation was made that there had been an heated exchange between the deceased and the accused about 7-8 months before the subject incident and that owing to the said enmity, the accused murdered the deceased. Prima facie, the said theory about motive does not inspire confidence. If at all and had there been any enmity between the accused and the deceased, then there was no reason as to why, the accused would invite the deceased to sit and consume liquor with them. Thus, prima facie, we are not satisfied that the motive portrayed in the evidence of the two star prosecution witnesses was the reason behind incident. From the evidence of Smt. Jethi Devi as well as Jeetu Ram, it is clear that both of them neither raised any hue and cry nor did they make efforts to approach the neighbours or other relatives who reside in the village Daiya so as to save the deceased. From the evidence of Smt. Jethi Devi as well as Jeetu Ram, it is clear that both of them neither raised any hue and cry nor did they make efforts to approach the neighbours or other relatives who reside in the village Daiya so as to save the deceased. If at all, these two witnesses had seen the accused, binding the deceased with ropes and assaulting him brutally as is claimed by them in their testimony, then the natural human behavior demanded that they should have raised an alarm and so also to have informed their relatives who reside in the same village i.e. Daiya in an endeavour to save the sole bread earner of the family. Pertinent questions were put to both Jethi Devi and Jeetu Ram regarding the fact that they did not take any steps to wake up the neighbours or to inform the police, etc. in the night. Jethi Devi tried to offer a lame explanation that despite her fervent pleas, no one woke up but prima facie, this version of Jethi Devi is not palpable and convincing. Further, a very significant question was put to Smt. Jethi as to why, no efforts were made by them to use a mobile phone so as to seek help or to call the police. The witness evaded the defence suggestion stating that neither she nor her brother Sukhlal had a mobile. She stated that her Jeth Prahlad Ram does carry a mobile but to justify the non-user of the phone for informing the police, she claimed that Prahlad Ram had left his mobile at Gangashahar while coming to the village Daiya. Jeetu Ram (P.W.7) in the initial part of his testimony, claimed that Prahlad Ram was also present at the village Daiya on the fateful night. However, he subsequently stated in his examination-in-chief that Sukhlal informed Prahlad of the incident on the next morning. Manifestly thus, Sukhlal had available with him a means of communication with which he called Prahlad Ram. The fact that both Jethi Devi as well as Jeetu Ram, tried to modulate their evidence to establish the presence of Prahlad Ram in the village Daiya on the fateful night, affects adversely and impairs the credibility of their testimony. Manifestly thus, Sukhlal had available with him a means of communication with which he called Prahlad Ram. The fact that both Jethi Devi as well as Jeetu Ram, tried to modulate their evidence to establish the presence of Prahlad Ram in the village Daiya on the fateful night, affects adversely and impairs the credibility of their testimony. Smt. Jethi Devi, in her cross-examination, stated that when she, Sukhlal and Prahlad Ram went back to the place of the occurrence, her husband pleaded that the accused would kill him and thus, he should not be left behind. She claims that she raised a hue and cry but, nobody came out to help them. However, it does not stand to reason that not a single villager would try to intervene for saving a human being in distress despite an alarm being raised. It is not the prosecution case that the accused were having any criminal background or were so influential in the village that nobody would dare to speak out against them. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that failure of Jethi Devi (wife of the deceased), her son Jeetu Ram and her brother Sukhlal in making any efforts to save the deceased from the clutches of the accused despite apprehension that he might suffer serious harm at their hands, casts a significant doubt on their testimony. It may also be noted that as both these witnesses, tried to prove the presence of Prahlad Ram at the village Daiya at the time of the incident, this aspect also adversely affects the veracity of their testimony. Jethi Devi admitted in her cross-examination that neither did they ask for telephone from anyone to inform the police, nor did they hire any tempo on rent to take Hadman to the hospital. She further admitted that her husband Hadman Ram had been convicted in a murder case and had been released shortly before the incident. Hence, it can be reasonably expected that Hadman Ram would be having inimical relations with the family of the victim whom he had murdered. Thus, if enmity was the motive behind the incident, we feel that the possibility of those persons having assaulted/killed the deceased cannot be ruled out. Hence, it can be reasonably expected that Hadman Ram would be having inimical relations with the family of the victim whom he had murdered. Thus, if enmity was the motive behind the incident, we feel that the possibility of those persons having assaulted/killed the deceased cannot be ruled out. The reason for implication of the accused appellants in this case appears to be the fact that the deceased might be in a habit of consuming liquor with the accused and his dead body was recovered just outside their houses and thus, manifestly, the prosecution witnesses seem to have drawn a conjectural inference regarding them being responsible for the incident. 8. As per the deposition of the Medical Officer Dr. Rahul Jain (P.W.11), being a member of the Medical Board which conducted autopsy upon the body of the deceased, as many as 17 injuries were noticed including ligature marks on the wrists of the dead body. The cause of death was opined to be multiple sub-scalp haematoma as well as subdural haemorrhages (head injury). Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 , considered the categories of witnesses in a criminal case and held as below: “14. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that “no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar’s ‘Law of Evidence’ - 9th Edition, at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s. 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s. 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. 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 had 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. 15. 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. 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. 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.” 9. We feel that the ratio of the above judgment fully applies to the case at hand. Prahlad Ram is a false and cooked up witness as he was undoubtedly not present in the village Daiya on the fateful night. Jethi Devi’s and Jeetu’s conduct also belies their claim that they had seen the assault being made on the deceased with their own eyes. Prahlad Ram is a false and cooked up witness as he was undoubtedly not present in the village Daiya on the fateful night. Jethi Devi’s and Jeetu’s conduct also belies their claim that they had seen the assault being made on the deceased with their own eyes. Both these two witnesses, while deposing on oath, gave false evidence and tried to prove the presence of Prahlad Ram in the village Daiya and tried to fortify his claim of being an eyewitness to the incident which brings their testimony under a grave cloud of doubt and brings them into the category of wholly unreliable witnesses. Apart from their evidence, there is nothing on record which can connect the accused appellants Pappu Singh and Gordhan Singh with the incident. 10. The accused Abu Singh was arrested on 11.05.2009 and the Investigating Officer Devendra Singh (P.W.10) claims to have recovered a blood stained lathi on the basis of information provided to him by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide recovery memo (Ex. P/2) dated 14.05.2009. While carrying out the site inspection proceedings, a blood stained rope was also recovered from the house of Abu Singh. The rope, the lathi, the baniyan of the deceased and the blood stained soil collected from the place of the occurrence, were subjected to serological analysis at the FSL and all tested positive for the presence of human blood of 7\B’ group as per FSL Report (Ex. P/30) dated 07.07.2009) This circumstance undoubtedly creates a strong suspicion against the accused Abu Singh. However, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. It is an admitted position from the statement of the investigation officer that the family members of Abu Singh were residing with him in the same premises. Thus, without any doubt, the recoveries cannot be held to have been made from the exclusive/conscious possession of Shri Abu Singh. In absence of convincing, clinching and cogent substantive evidence to connect Abu Singh with the offence, it would not be safe to convict him for the offences simply on the basis of the circumstance of recovery. 11. As we have concluded that the first informant Prahlad Ram has been cooked up as an eye-witness of the occurrence; as a consequence, the FIR (Ex. 11. As we have concluded that the first informant Prahlad Ram has been cooked up as an eye-witness of the occurrence; as a consequence, the FIR (Ex. P/4) is a fabricated document and since, the evidence of Smt. Jethi Devi (P.W.5) and Jeetu Ram (P.W.7) is also far from convincing because they are wholly unreliable witnesses, there apparently remains no substantive evidence on record so as to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. It clearly appears that the entire endeavour of complainant party was aimed towards implication of the three accused in the incident because the dead body of Shri Hadman Ram was recovered nearby their houses and drag marks were visible on the passage dividing these houses. Thus, in the natural course of events, the finger of suspicion appears to have pointed towards the accused and in order to lend credence to this conjectural theory, the whole case appears to have been manipulated by portraying the appellants to be the murderers of Hadman Ram. However, since we have affirmatively held that Prahlad Ram was not even present in the village Daiya at the time of the incident; that the FIR is a fabricated document and, as the conduct of Smt. Jethi Devi (P.W.5) and Jeetu Ram (P.W.7) belies their claim that they had actually seen the accused stopping Hadman Ram on the pretext of making him to consume liquor and the subsequent sequence of events in which, the deceased was tied up and was assaulted by lathis, and because the witness Sukhlal was deliberately held back by the prosecution and was not examined in evidence, manifestly, there remains no reliable substantive evidence on the record of the case so as to uphold the guilt of the accused appellants for the murder of Hadman. The recoveries of blood stained articles made from Abu Singh might give rise to grave suspicion but the same do not constitute proof beyond all manner of doubt and hence, the appellant Abu Singh also cannot be held guilty for the murder of Hadman Ram. 12. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, we are of the opinion that the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted by extending them the benefit of doubt. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 12. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, we are of the opinion that the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted by extending them the benefit of doubt. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 58/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants Abu Singh, Pappu Singh and Gordhan Singh are acquitted of the charges. The appellants, who are in custody since May, 2009, shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 14. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. each of the accused appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount 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 a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.