JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. By the said judgment, the appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo (i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one year was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC (ii) simple imprisonment for a period of one month and ordered to pay Rs.250/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution version, on 21.02.2001 at about 7.30 to 8.00 hours in the evening, due to dispute as regards the financial transaction, some altercations took place between the deceased and the present appellant-accused as well as absconding accused, due to which, the absconding accused caught hold the deceased and the present appellant gave two blows of big knife. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries given by knife and died. Thereby, the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge delivered the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2001, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Rinny Kantaria for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and argued that father and brother of the deceased have been declared hostile to the case of the prosecution as they had not supported the case of the prosecution and even three witnesses, who are claimed to be eye-witnesses, have also not supported the case of the prosecution and consequently therefore, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He has argued that however, while recording such finding, the learned trial court committed a grave error in convicting the appellant under Section 201 of IPC as if he had caused disappearance of material evidence, though neither he was charge-sheeted for commission of such offence nor any such charge was framed against him. 4.1 Learned senior advocate has pointed out that though as per the prosecution version, prosecution witness No.3- Mohammadhussain Bashirahmed Shaikh was eye-witness to the incident, he has at all not supported the case of the prosecution and furthermore, prosecution witness Nos. 1 & 2 – father and brother of the deceased before whom it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased gave oral dying declaration involving the present appellant as well as absconding accused, have at all not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further pointed out that there is no substantive or direct evidence available on record to link the present appellant with the crime in question. It is further pointed out that there is no substantive or direct evidence available on record to link the present appellant with the crime in question. He has argued that though both the panchas who were examined before the learned trial court, had at all not supported the case of the prosecution and had not deposed that the present appellant made voluntary disclosure statement in order to find out the weapon knife alleged to have been used while committing the crime in question, the learned trial court, placing reliance upon the disclosure panchanama as if the present appellant had caused disappearance of knife, convicted him which is not sustainable in law. As per the submission of learned senior advocate, even on plain reading of the aforesaid panchnama, no where it is indicated that the appellant made any disclosure statement in order to disclose the concealed knife either before the police or before the panchas. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Trivedi has supported the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned trial court. Learned APP has pointed out that the learned trial court raised the points of determination and the findings are in accordance with the evidence available on record. Ultimately, he has argued that no interference is called for by this Court since the conviction is based on cogent and concurrent evidence available on record. 6. This Court has minutely gone through the record & proceedings and the evidence of material witnesses. 7. Prosecution witness No.1 – Sagirahmed Manzurahmed Shaikh – brother of the deceased has at all not supported the case of the prosecution, though he was cited as witness by the prosecution that the deceased had made oral dying declaration involving the present appellant as an assailant before him. 8. Prosecution witness No.2 – Manzurahmed Faizalahmed Shaikh – father of the deceased – complainant has at all not supported the case of the prosecution, though he was cited as witness before whom the deceased had made oral dying declaration involving the present appellant as an assailant. 9. Prosecution witness No.3 – Mohammadhussain Bashirahmed Shaikh – Friend of the deceased who was cited as eye-witness to the incident has at all not supported the case of the prosecution. Though he was extensively cross-examined by learned APP, he had not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Prosecution witness Nos. 9. Prosecution witness No.3 – Mohammadhussain Bashirahmed Shaikh – Friend of the deceased who was cited as eye-witness to the incident has at all not supported the case of the prosecution. Though he was extensively cross-examined by learned APP, he had not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Prosecution witness Nos. 5 – Arunkumar Chandubhai Patel and 6-Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Patel were examined in order to prove the discovery panchanama at Exh.27, but they had at all not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, since the prosecution failed to link the present appellant with the crime in question for causing death of the deceased, he came to be acquitted. However, placing reliance upon Exh.27 as well as deposition of police official, the learned trial court believing that the present appellant has caused disappearance of knife as he threw away the same nearby canal, convicted him under Section 201 of IPC as stated above. 12. On the aspect of conviction under Section 201 of IPC, indisputably, neither the present appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 201 of IPC nor he was charged by the learned trial court for the said offence. While making evaluation of aforesaid evidence – panchanama at Exh. 27 on record, no where it indicates that the present appellant had ever made any disclosure statement before the police or before the panchas, but the said document indicates that the police has made to understand to the panchas that the appellant would voluntarily disclose the weapon. On that count also, no reliance could have been placed over the said panchnama at Exh.27 and even both the panchas have at all not supported the case of the prosecution. The statement which is emerging out from the said panchnama at Exh.27 is also clearly hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. On that count also, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law. 13. As a result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is on bail, he need not to surrender. The bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. The judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is on bail, he need not to surrender. The bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him by the respondent-State. 14. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.