JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") laying challenge to judgment dated 29.07.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2008, whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 307 IPC. 2. The key facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal can tersely be summarized as under: As per the prosecution story, during the night of 30/31.07.2008, Smt. Naro (complainant) was sleeping in her room alongwith her two minor children. Mother-in-law and sister-in-law, of the complainant were also sleeping in the adjoining room. The accused persons, namely Jeet Singh (appellant herein) and Raj Kumar (co-accused), at about 02:30-03:00 a.m. kicked the door of the room of the complainant, which caused unbolting of the door. The accused persons entered the room of the complainant and inflicted injuries on the neck of the complainant with darat. On hearing noise, Smt. Durgo (mother-in-law) and Smt. Jaiwanti (sister-in-law) came there and the accused persons fled away from the spot. On hearing the screams of Smt. Durgo and Smt. Jaiwant, other persons also came there. On the night of occurrence it was raining heavily and there was electric cut. The complainant was shifted to CHC, Tissa and the Medical Officer, Tissa, telephonically informed the police. Police, of Police Station Tissa, after entering a rapat rushed to the CHC, Tissa. The Medical Officer opined the complainant not fit to give statement and when in the opinion of the Medical Officer she was fit, her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. The complainant stated that on the night of 30.07.2008, when she was sleeping, some unknown person kicked the door and entered her room. A person was having lighter in one hand and darat in the other and he inflicted darat blow on her. She further stated that on hearing the noise, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law came and the accused persons fled away from the spot. On the premise of the statement of the complainant, so recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR was registered and the investigation ensued. She further stated that on hearing the noise, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law came and the accused persons fled away from the spot. On the premise of the statement of the complainant, so recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR was registered and the investigation ensued. The complainant was medically examined and as per her medical examination, the injury was opined to be caused by sharp edged weapon and was deep enough to cause her death, thus the injury was dangerous to life. During the course of investigation, the complainant gave supplementary statement, wherein she stated that injury was inflicted by accused Jaggo @ Jeet Singh (appellant herein) at the instance of accused Raju. Police arrested the accused persons and during the personal search of accused Jeet Singh, a gas lighter was recovered, which was taken into possession. Accused Jeet Singh made a disclosure statement in the police custody and got recovered a darat, which was taken into possession by the police. Police prepared the site plan and took into possession the blood stained clothes of the complainant, which she was wearing at the time of the occurrence. The investigation revealed that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal house tress pass by entering into the house of the complainant with an intention to commit an offence and also caused hurt to the complainant with such intention and under such circumstances, if by that act, they had caused complainant's death, they would have been guilt of her murder. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded not guilty. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 29.07.2009/30.07.2009 convicted accused Jeet Singh @ Jaggo (appellant herein) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 452 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 452 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 307 IPC. The learned Trial Courts, vide the impugned judgment, acquitted co-accused Raj Kumar. So, the accused preferred the present appeal, laying challenge to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and carefully gone through the records in detail. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and law. He has further argued that the appellant has only been convicted on the basis of suspicion. There is no concrete and reliable material which proves the identity of the appellant. He has further argued that there is doubt qua the weapon of offence. He has argued that on the same set of evidence accused Raj Kumar has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and the appellant was convicted. He has argued that the evidence has lacunae and there are contradictions qua identity of the accused administering blow on the complainant, weapon of offence, motive behind the crime and thus the appellant should be given benefit of doubt. He has argued that the appellant has been convicted wrongly by the learned Trial Court, so the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, as there is sufficient convincing and cogent material against him. He has further argued that statements of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence, so the appeal, which sans merits, be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that as there are many lacunae in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have made improvements in their depositions, so the appellant should be given benefit of doubt by allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused. 8. In the case in hand, the deposition of complainant, Smt. Naro, who was examined as PW-1, is important. 8. In the case in hand, the deposition of complainant, Smt. Naro, who was examined as PW-1, is important. She has deposed that her husband was involved in ND and PS case and lodged in jail, so she was residing in her home alongwith her two children and mother-in-law. She has further deposed that 30.07.2008, at about 02:30-03:00 a.m. the accused persons kicked the door and came inside her room. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh was armed with darat and after entering the room accused Raj Kumar slapped her and accused Jeet Singh inflicted darat injury on her. She has deposed that accused Raj Kumar had lighter in his hand. She sustained injury on the left side of her neck. She screamed for help, so the accused persons fled away from the spot. She deposed that she had torch, which she had kept under her pillow. She has further deposed that she alongwith her children was sleeping in the room and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were sleeping in another room. She has deposed that on that night there was no electricity and it was raining heavily. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, on hearing her noise, came on the spot. She knew the accused persons prior to the occurrence. She became unconscious and was shifted to hospital by her Jeth and the villagers, where she regained her consciousness. She has further deposed that her statement and supplementary statements were recorded by the police. She handed over her blood stained clothes, i.e., shirt to the police in presence of Shri Pawan Kumar and Smt. Tulsi Devi, memo qua which is Ex. PW-1/B, which bears her signatures. This witness, on seeing the darat in the Court denied that it was the same which was used by the accused. She deposed that the darat used by the accused was complete, whereas the darat produced in the Court is half. She has further deposed that on 18.03.2008 she disclosed the names of the accused persons in her supplementary statement and also stated that accused persons picked up quarrel with her prior to the incident on the premise that accused were fencing on her waterline and they had also cut water supply. She has further stated that the accused persons also used to throw garbage in front of her house. A civil suit qua the land between them is pending in the Court. She has further stated that the accused persons also used to throw garbage in front of her house. A civil suit qua the land between them is pending in the Court. As per this witness, the lighter, which accused Raj Kumar was having, was green in color. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that her mother, brother, Jaith and Jaith's sons were present in the hospital, when her statement was being recorded by the police and her sister-in-law was not there. She has specifically deposed that her signature on the statement was not obtained at that time. She has further deposed that when her first statement was recorded by the police, she was not in full senses. She has deposed that she stated to the police that accused Raj Kumar had lighter and accused Jeet Singh had darat, but in her statement, Ex. PW-1/A, and also in her supplementary statement it is not so recorded. She has further deposed that she stated to the police that she used to keep torch under her pillow, however, it is not so recorded in her statement given to the police. She admitted that her statement, dated 18.08.2008, does not bear her signatures. 9. Another key prosecution witness is Smt. Durgo Devi, mother-in-law of the complainant (victim). She has deposed that last year during the month of sawan, in mid night, when she alongwith her daughter was sleeping and the complainant alongwith her children was sleeping in another room, she wake up to tie bull and noticed two persons, which she identified to be the accused persons. Thereafter, she went to sleep and around 03:00 a.m. she heard noise of her daughter-in-law, so she got up and noticed the accused persons running from there. At that time she identified the accused persons. She raised hue and cry, so villages and her son came on the spot. Her daughter-in-law had sustained injuries on her left side of neck and blood was oozing. The complainant was shifted to hospital by her son and the villagers. She specifically feigned ignorance why the accused persons caused hurt to her daughter-in-law. She has further deposed that they had no dispute, except the dispute of land. Her daughter-in-law had sustained injuries on her left side of neck and blood was oozing. The complainant was shifted to hospital by her son and the villagers. She specifically feigned ignorance why the accused persons caused hurt to her daughter-in-law. She has further deposed that they had no dispute, except the dispute of land. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that she stated in her statement given to the police that she noticed the accused persons while they were standing near the door, but it is not so recorded and instead it is recorded that the accused persons were moving towards her house. This witness has deposed that she stated to the police that accused Jaggo had darat in his hand, whereas it is not so recorded in her statement given to the police. 10. PW-3, Shri Kanwar Singh (son of PW-2), deposed that during the night of occurrence his mother was crying loudly and saying "maar diya" so he alongwith his brother Bhnnu Ram, Thallu Ram and Bhuri Singh rushed to the spot and noticed that the complainant had sustained injuries on her neck, blood was oozing and she was lying on the ground. As per this witness, they waited for about 1-2 hours till morning and took the complainant to hospital and all the villagers helped. He has further deposed that the complainant complained that the reason for dispute was water supply and checking of the pipe line by the fitter. The accused persons had put fencing on the pipe line and the same was uprooted by the complainant. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the complainant told him the name of the accused on the date of the incident and thereafter in the hospital. He has deposed that he stated to the police that the complainant told him that injuries had been caused to her by the accused persons, but it is not so recorded in his statement given to the police. 11. PW-4, Shri Akal Beg, Shopkeeper, deposed that about 6-7 months back, at about 05:00 a.m., he was at Nakrod and the complainant was brought in injured condition. He has further deposed that a vehicle was hired and the complainant was shifted to hospital and he also accompanied. 11. PW-4, Shri Akal Beg, Shopkeeper, deposed that about 6-7 months back, at about 05:00 a.m., he was at Nakrod and the complainant was brought in injured condition. He has further deposed that a vehicle was hired and the complainant was shifted to hospital and he also accompanied. This witness accompanied the police personnel to the house of the complainant, where they noticed a broken chain (maala), stained with blood, which was taken into possession by the police. There was a chimta, which was taken into possession. A kunda was lying alongwith a keel (nail), which was also taken into possession by the police alongwith other iron articles. As per this witness, police prepared recovery memo, Ex. PW-4/A. He has further deposed that accused took the police to place known as Shaniuna and got recovered a darat. He identified the darat to be the same. He has specifically deposed that the darat was broken. Police took into possession the recovered darat, vide memo PW-4/B, which bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that on 14.09.2008, police asked him to accompany them as accused Jeet Singh is to recover a weapon. He has deposed that only darat, Ex. P4, was handed over by accused Jeet Singh to the police and not the broken piece. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh got recovered the darat immediately after reaching the spot. He has deposed that the darat was sealed in a parcel and seal was not handed over to anyone, however, thereafter he stated that seal was given to him and he lost the same. 12. PW-5, Shri Bhoori Singh, deposed that on 31.07.2009, at about 3-03:30 a.m. his grand mother called him and he heard the noise of weeping, so he alongwith his uncle Punnu, went to the house of the complainant and when he was going, both the accused persons met him on the way. He noticed the complainant in an injured condition and blood was oozing from her wound. As per this witness, the complainant had sustained injuries on her neck and blood was lying on the ground. He has further deposed that the complainant told him that accused persons caused injuries to her. It was raining and he went to call the doctor, but doctor was not found. As per this witness, the complainant had sustained injuries on her neck and blood was lying on the ground. He has further deposed that the complainant told him that accused persons caused injuries to her. It was raining and he went to call the doctor, but doctor was not found. Subsequently, he went to Police Chowki and police told him that the injured be shifted to hospital and thereafter proceedings will be conducted. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he in his statement given to the police stated that the complainant, on being asked by him, told that accused persons caused injuries to her, but it is not so recorded in his statement given to the police. As per this witness, on date of incident he had only identified accused Raju. He has further deposed that in this case he was also interrogated by the police. He was called by the police thrice, but he does not remember the date. 13. PW-6, Shri Punnu Ram, deposed that in the month of sawan, at about 03:30 a.m. his mother raised noise, so he alongwith others went there. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh met him on the way and he was proceeding towards the house of accused Raj Kumar. He identified the accused persons in the Court. He has further deposed that he noticed oozing blood from the wounds of the complainant. The complainant told him that accused persons caused injuries to her. Thereafter, they shifted the complainant to Tissa Hospital after about one hour. On the subsequent day police arrived on the spot and recorded his statement. He has further deposed that police came with accused Jeet Singh and he got recovered a darat, which was taken into possession. Recovery memo, Ex. PW-4/A, bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he saw accused Jeet Singh from a distance of 4-5 meters. On that day it was raining and it was pitch dark. He was ahead and Bhoori Singh was behind him and thereafter Thallu Ram and lastly Kanwar Singh and they were going towards the house of the complainant. He feigned ignorance that police had suspicion qua the involvement of Bhoori Singh in the incident. 14. PW-7, Shri Khem Raj, deposed that on 12.07.2008 he was in the Police Station for some personal work. He feigned ignorance that police had suspicion qua the involvement of Bhoori Singh in the incident. 14. PW-7, Shri Khem Raj, deposed that on 12.07.2008 he was in the Police Station for some personal work. In his presence accused Jeet Singh made a disclosure statement that he had concealed a darat in the bushes and he can get it recovered. Personal search of accused Jeet Singh was conducted and a lighter was recovered. Police took into possession the lighter vide recovery memo, Ex. PW7/A, which bears his signatures. The said memo also bears the signatures of Shri Virender. Disclosure statement, Ex. PW-7/B, given by accused Jeet Singh, bears his signatures and the same was signed by accused Jeet Singh and witness Shri Virender. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh divulged that at the time of incident he was having this lighter. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that on being asked by the police, accused disclosed about the darat. He has further deposed that both the accused persons were interrogated and both of them made statement qua concealment of the darat. 15. PW-8, Shri Resham Singh, deposed that on 30.07.2008, he was in village Chilli for purchasing TV. A boy from Jasourgarh met him and told that Jeet Singh's brother Teko had a TV for sale. Teko told him to come on the next day and make payment of Rs. 5000/- to Jeet Singh (accused). He identified accused Jeet Singh in the Court. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that accused Jeet Singh accompanied him for some distance. On the subsequent day, he came to know that the complainant sustained injuries. The complainant is his bhabhi. As per this witness, Rinku is his nephew and police interrogated Rinku. Police threatened Rinku to be involved in the present case, but when Pardhan intervened Rinku was saved. 16. PW-9, Shri Allabux, deposed that on 31.07.2009, at about 10:00 a.m. when he was returning from Himgiri to his house at Nakrod, accused Jeet Singh met him near Nakrod and wished him when he asked him as to where he is going. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh told him that he is going to Himgiri to bring TV. He has further deposed that accused Raj Kumar has litigation qua the land with husband of the complainant. He came to know that the complainant had been beaten by Jeet Singh. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh told him that he is going to Himgiri to bring TV. He has further deposed that accused Raj Kumar has litigation qua the land with husband of the complainant. He came to know that the complainant had been beaten by Jeet Singh. He also went to hospital and to the house of the complainant to inquire about the well being of the complainant. On 1st/2nd August he went to Police Station, Tissa, in connection of this case. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh was also present in the Police Station. 17. PW-10, Shri Pawan Kumar (brother of the complainant), deposed that on 18.08.2008 he was associated by the Police in the investigation of this case. As per this witness, on that day the complainant produced a shirt, Ex. P2, which was taken into possession, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/B, which bears his signatures and the thumb impression of his mother and thumb. When he was going to the house of the complainant, complainant met him on the way, when she was being taken to hospital, so he accompanied her to hospital. The complainant was unconscious and he remained with the complainant in the hospital for three days. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that accused Raju and his father disclosed to him that accused Jeet Singh was in their house on the night of the incident. He has further deposed that he did not state to the police in his statement that the complainant told him to find out whether accused Jeet Singh was present in the village on the night of the incident. He has admitted that accused Jeet Singh hails from village Shineua, which is 50 kilo meters away, via road, from complainant's village. 18. PW-11, Shri R.P. Jaswal, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Tissa, deposed that Investigating Officer after completion of investigation in the present case handed over the case file to him and he prepared the chargesheet, which was submitted in the Court by him. PW-12, Shri Madan Lal, the then MHC, Police Station, Tissa, deposed that on 31.07.2008, on receipt of statement of the complainant, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A, he registered FIR, Ex. PW-10/A, which bears his signatures. He also made endorsement, Ex.PW-12/B, on statement, Ex.PW-1/A, and sent the case file to PP Nakrod for investigation. PW-12, Shri Madan Lal, the then MHC, Police Station, Tissa, deposed that on 31.07.2008, on receipt of statement of the complainant, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A, he registered FIR, Ex. PW-10/A, which bears his signatures. He also made endorsement, Ex.PW-12/B, on statement, Ex.PW-1/A, and sent the case file to PP Nakrod for investigation. On 31.08.2009, he received case property, through ASI Ashok Kumar, which he kept in the Malkhana, after making requisite entries. On 14.09.2008 he received a sealed parcel, through ASI Ashok Kumar, which stated to have contained darat and a sealed parcel, which stated to have contained lighter. He made requisite entries in the Malkhana registered qua the same. He has further deposed that on 27.11.2008, all the parcels were sent to District Malkhana Chamba, vide RC No. 126/08, through Constable Naresh Kumar. As per this witness, as long as parcels remained with him, they were intact and not tampered with. 19. PW-12, HC Madan Lal, deposed that on 31.07.2008 he received statement of the complainant, which was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A, and thereafter he recorded FIR, Ex. PW-10/A. He has further deposed that to this effect he made endorsement, Ex. PW-12/B, on Ex. PW-1/A. As per this witness on 31.08.2008, ASI Ashok Kumar handed over to him sealed parcels, which stated to have contained a shirt, mala, chimta and chitkani alongwith sample seal, for being kept in malkhana. He made entries qua deposit of the above case property. On 14.09.2008 ASI Ashok Kumar handed over to him two more sealed parcels, which stated to have contained a darat (takua numa) and a gas lighter. He made entries qua these items in the malkhana register. He has further deposed that on 27.11.2008 all the above parcels were sent to District Malkhan, Chamba, through Constable Naresh Kumar, vide RC No. 126/08. As per this witness, under his custody the case property remained intact. 20. PW-13, ASI Mulakh Raj, deposed that on 31.07.2008 a telephonic message was received from Medical Officer, CHC, Tissa, that a lady has been brought to the hospital in injured condition. Thereafter, a report was lodged in roznamcha and he alongwith Constable Ajay Kumar, HHG Rajeev and SPO Ramesh rushed to the hospital. He has further deposed that he moved application, Ex. PW-13/A, for procuring the Medico Legal Certificate of the injured and also for recording her statement. Thereafter, a report was lodged in roznamcha and he alongwith Constable Ajay Kumar, HHG Rajeev and SPO Ramesh rushed to the hospital. He has further deposed that he moved application, Ex. PW-13/A, for procuring the Medico Legal Certificate of the injured and also for recording her statement. At about 01:00 p.m. he recorded the statement of the injured, as earlier the patient, as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, was not fit to give statement. The statement of the injured was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and it was explained to her and only then the injured put her signatures on it and also admitted its correctness. He has further deposed that statement of the injured was sent to police station, through Constable Ajay Kumar, which formed basis for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, file was sent to Police Post, Nakrod, for further investigation. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that when he was recording the statement of the injured in the hospital, her nanad Jaiwanti was also present there. He read over and explained the statement to the injured and she admitted the same to be correct and appended her signatures on her statement, Ex. PW-1/A. He has further deposed that Jaiwanti also admitted statement, Ex. PW1/A, to be correct and she appended her signatures on it. As per this witness, the injured disclosed the description of some unknown person in her statement, Ex. PW-1/A. 21. One of the important witnesses in the case in hand is PW-14, Dr. Jaswant Singh, the then Medical Officer, CHC, Tissa. He deposed that on 31.07.2008, at about 08:00 a.m. he medically examined Smt. Naro Devi (injured/complainant) and noticed as under: "Large incised wound was present on left lateral side of neck upto upper margin of scapular bone up left side. The wound was measuring 15 cm x 5 cms from middle. All structures underlying incised. (Muscles stemocleiodomastoid spendeous and lateral scapulae) The wound was having clear cut edges gaped from the middle. Bleeding profusely (Blood was red in colour. Clotted blood was present over the clothes and surrounding area was dark red in colour. The injury was caused by sharp heavy weapon below the neck and was deep enough to cause death of the victim." This witness, after seeing darat, Ex. P4, in the Court, opined that the injury sustained by the injured is possible with darat, Ex. P4. Clotted blood was present over the clothes and surrounding area was dark red in colour. The injury was caused by sharp heavy weapon below the neck and was deep enough to cause death of the victim." This witness, after seeing darat, Ex. P4, in the Court, opined that the injury sustained by the injured is possible with darat, Ex. P4. As per this witness, injury was simple in nature and caused within the duration of 48 hours. He opined the injury to be dangerous to life. He issued Medico Legal Certificate, Ex. PW-14/A, which bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that the patient was in her senses. She did not divulge the name of assailant to him and to the person, who was with her. He has further deposed that at 08:45 a.m. police reached the hospital. He has deposed that the statement of the injured was not recorded in her presence. 22. PW-15, Constable Ajay Kumar, deposed that on 31.07.2008, at about 07:55 a.m. Medical officer, Tissa, informed through telephone that a lady had been brought to hospital in an injured state. He alongwith ASI Mulakh Raj, HHG Rajeev Kumar, SPO Rakesh Kumar went to CHC, Tissa. He has further deposed that ASI Mulakh Raj moved an application for procuring the Medico opinion qua the injured. He has further deposed that as per the opinion of Medical Officer the injured was not in a fit state to give statement. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and again went to the hospital at 12 noon. The Medical Officer declared the injured fit, so ASI Mulakh Raj recorded the statement of the injured and it was given to him at about 01:30 p.m. He took the statement of the injured to police station and handed it over to MHC. On the basis of the statement of the injured, FIR was recorded. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that statement of the injured, Ex. PW-1/A, was read over to her. He has further deposed that at the time of recording of the statement Smt. Jaiwanti was also present there and she appended her signatures corroborating the version of the complainant (injured Naro Devi). 23. PW-16, Miss Manju Kumari (minor witness). The learned Trial Court, by putting Court questions, satisfied its conscious that the witness has given rational answers to the questions. 23. PW-16, Miss Manju Kumari (minor witness). The learned Trial Court, by putting Court questions, satisfied its conscious that the witness has given rational answers to the questions. As per this witness, accused present in the Court came inside the house and inflicted blows on her mother. She has further deposed that accused Raju was having darat. It was dark and thereafter her mother was shifted to hospital. Accused Jaggo was also accompanying accused Raju and her Bua (aunt) was also present at that time. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when she got up at 05:00 a.m. accused persons were not there. She has deposed that her brother asked her to make such statement in the Court. Police did not inquire from her. 24. The last witness in the line of prosecution witnesses is PW-17, ASI Ashok Kumar, Investigating Officer. His deposition is vital and he deposed that on 01.08.2008 he received the case file of the present case for investigation. On the same day he visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ex. PW-17/A. Vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-4/A, he effected the recoveries of articles lying on the spot. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 02.08.2008 he visited the hospital for obtaining medical opinion. He has further deposed that Medical Officer opined that injuries sustained by the injured were dangerous to life, so he added Section 307 IPC. He has deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of the injured in her parental house at village Ashlund. He took into possession the clothes of the injured into possession and sealed the same in presence of witnesses and seal after its use was handed over to Shri Pawan Kumar. On 09.09.2008 he arrested the accused and accused Jeet produced a lighter, which was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW-7/A, and sealed in a parcel. He has further deposed that on 12.09.2008 while accused Jeet Singh was in custody, he made disclosure statement, Ex. PW-7/B, and got recovered darat, Ex. P4. The said statement was made in presence of witnesses Shri Khem Raj and Shri Varinder. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh himself led the police party and got recovered the darat, which was concealed in bushes. A sketch of the darat was prepared and it was taken into possession, vide memo, Ex. PW-17/D and sealed in a parcel. P4. The said statement was made in presence of witnesses Shri Khem Raj and Shri Varinder. As per this witness, accused Jeet Singh himself led the police party and got recovered the darat, which was concealed in bushes. A sketch of the darat was prepared and it was taken into possession, vide memo, Ex. PW-17/D and sealed in a parcel. The said parcel was sealed with seal having impression 'A' and facsimile seal was handed over to Shri Akkal Beg. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses qua the recovery. He prepared site plan of the place of recovery, which is Ex. PW-17/F. On 26.09.2008 he obtained MLC, Ex. PW14/A, from the Medical Officer after showing the weapon of offence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses on different dates. After the completion of the investigation, on 28.09.2008 he handed over the case file to the then SHO Shri R.P. Jaswal. This witness was cross-examined at length, but the defence could not extract anything fruitful. 25. After exhaustively discussing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is safe to hold that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are marred with contradictions and discrepancies and the same create a doubt in the mind of this Court. The learned Trial Court acquitted accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and convicted accused Jeet Singh @ Jaggo, but this Court, after analyzing the evidence, notices the following lacunae in the prosecution evidence: (a) The complainant (PW-1), in her deposition made before the Court, stated that the darat (alleged weapon of offence) used by the accused was complete, whereas the darat recovered by the police was half. Thus, PW-1 did not admit the weapon of offence to be same, as, as per PW-1 the darat which was used for causing injuries to her was having complete handle and the one produced in the Court was having a broken handle. (b) The evidence reveals that the complainant was having a dispute qua uprooting of baadh (boundary fence) with accused Raj Kumar and no dispute existed with accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein). (c) The complainant's statement was recorded by the police twice and when her first statement was being recorded she was not in full senses. (b) The evidence reveals that the complainant was having a dispute qua uprooting of baadh (boundary fence) with accused Raj Kumar and no dispute existed with accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein). (c) The complainant's statement was recorded by the police twice and when her first statement was being recorded she was not in full senses. As per the complainant, she divulged to the police that accused Raj Kumar had lighter in his hand and accused Jeet Singh had darat in his hand, but it is nowhere recorded in her statements given to the police. Likewise, PW-2 (mother-in-law of the complainant) deposed that accused Jeet Singh had darat in his hand, but again it is not so recorded in her statement given to the police. (d) PW-1 (complainant), in her testimony deposed that she disclosed to PW-5, Shri Bhoor Singh, that accused persons caused injuries to her. Thus, she did not specifically name that which of the accused person caused injury to her. Even if it is believed that she disclosed to PW-5 that accused persons caused injuries to her, but this fact is not so recorded in her statements given to the police. (e) It has come on record that PW-5, Shri Bhoor Singh, on the day of occurrence only identified accused Raj Kumar @ Raju. (f) The complainant deposed that she disclosed to PW- 6, Shri Punnu Ram, that accused persons caused injuries to her, but again she did not specifically name that whether accused Jeet Singh or accused Raj Kumar caused injuries to her. (g) PW-16, Miss Manjuu (minor prosecution eye witness) deposed that accused Raj Kumar had darat, but as per the complainant accused Jeet Singh was having the darat (alleged weapon of offence). (h) The motive of the accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein) and his identification have not been clearly proved by the prosecution and it creates a doubt in the prosecution story. 26. It is no longer res integra that motive is not necessary for conviction or acquittal of the accused, however, motive may serve as a valuable clue in arriving on a most definitive conclusion. Here, in the present case, the motive of accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein) is unclear and not established. The golden principle of criminal jurisprudence is that thousand guilty may escape, but an innocent should not be convicted. As noticed above, the prosecution evidence lacks credence on many counts. Here, in the present case, the motive of accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein) is unclear and not established. The golden principle of criminal jurisprudence is that thousand guilty may escape, but an innocent should not be convicted. As noticed above, the prosecution evidence lacks credence on many counts. There are doubts qua weapon of offence, identification of accused Jeet Singh, it was accused Jeet Singh who caused injury on the neck of the complainant etc. The intensity of evidence, which is required to convict accused Jeet Singh is certainly lacking. Moreover, there is no satisfactory material about the identity of accused Jeet Singh, so it would be wrong to uphold his conviction. This Court also finds that the material, which has come on record, makes the prosecution story doubtful and thus, it would not be out of place that the learned Trial Court only on the basis of suspicion convicted accused Jeet Singh. It is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot supplant proof. 27. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, keeping in view the settled position of the law, as discussed hereinabove, and also the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which are marred with contradictions and discrepancies, it would be more than safe to reverse the findings of the learned Trial Court, as the prosecution has failed to convincingly and cogently establish the guilt of accused Jeet Singh (appellant herein). Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 IPC, is quashed and set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted for the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and is disposed of.