JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 602 of 2019. 2. D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 602 of 2019 has been listed before us for suspension of sentence of Roshan, applicant-appellant herein. 3. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant, has submitted that all the witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and except recovery of darat (sickle) weapon of offence from the applicant-appellant, which has surfaced in the evidence of Constable - Indal (PW-8) and the production of blood stained bed-sheet by Hoti Lal (PW-2), father of deceased - Krishna to the Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence available with the prosecution to connect the applicant-appellant with the crime alleged. 4. The record has already been received by this Court from the trial Court. 5. Mr. Javed Choudhary, ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, is unable to meet our observation that as to how the ld. Court below convicted the applicant-appellant when all the witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. State Counsel has very candidly prayed that since the record is available, the appeal itself may be decided instead of suspending the sentence of the applicant-appellant. Mr. Choudhary, ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that if the sentence is suspended, the applicant appellant shall abscond and will not be available, as on today the appeal is listed for hearing after a long delay of seven to ten years. 6. Mr. Sushil Pujari, ld. counsel appearing for the accused appellant, has submitted that he is also ready and willing to argue the appeal itself. 7. On the joint request made in the present application for suspension of sentence, we take D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2018, titled as Roshan vs. State of Rajasthan, on the Board for decision. 8. The accused-appellant - Roshan, along with his brother - Chhagan was tried by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 40.2015. The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018, acquitted-Chhagan, brother of accused-appellant - Roshan, by extending the benefit of doubt. However, the trial Judge convicted the present appellant - Roshan son of Harikishan by caste Koli for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018, acquitted-Chhagan, brother of accused-appellant - Roshan, by extending the benefit of doubt. However, the trial Judge convicted the present appellant - Roshan son of Harikishan by caste Koli for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Having convicted the accused-appellant for the above said offence, the trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 10. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2018 before this Court. 11. The criminal proceedings, in the present case, were set into motion on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/7) submitted by Hotilal (PW-2) before Mukesh Choudhary (PW-12), who was then posted as S.H.O. Police Station Kotawali Bharatpur. 12. The said written-report (Exhibit-P/7), when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The Station House Officer Sahib, Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur Subject : Regarding lodging of the report. Sir, It is submitted that my son - Krishna, aged 23 years yesterday night on 07.09.2015 at around 11:00 P.M. was found lying on the verge of the road in front of our house. The above occurrence had taken place at Kalighat, which was first seen by Vijay and Ganesh. They found him lying in the pool of blood. Vijay and Ganesh came to my house and relayed the above said information. Upon receipt of said information, I came at the spot and saw that due to injury caused, blood was oozing out of the wounds. My son was in an unconscious condition. He was taken to R.B.M. Hospital in an auto-rickshaw and was got admitted. During course of treatment, at about 11:45 P.M. my son expired. Doctors have declared him as dead. The dead-body is lying in the mortuary of R.B.M. Hospital, Bharatpur. I am presenting the report. The legal action be taken. Signed Hotilal son of Sonaram, Dt. 08.09.2015 by caste Koli, aged 60 years, resident of Village Sunari Police Station Chiksana, Bharatpur. Mobile - 9799450127" On the basis of above written-report (Exhibit-P/7), a formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/9) bearing No. 467/2015 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. 13. Signed Hotilal son of Sonaram, Dt. 08.09.2015 by caste Koli, aged 60 years, resident of Village Sunari Police Station Chiksana, Bharatpur. Mobile - 9799450127" On the basis of above written-report (Exhibit-P/7), a formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/9) bearing No. 467/2015 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. 13. A perusal of the above said F.I.R. reveals that Hotilal (PW-2) is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. He was present at his house, and information was relayed to him by Vijay and Ganesh. Ganesh and Vijay have appeared in the Court as PW-1 and PW-3 respectively. Ganesh (PW-1) in the Court deposed that 8-9 months ago at about 09:30 P.M. he found dead-body of Krishna lying in the open road. He stated that Krishna belongs to his locality and he knew Roshan and Chhagan. This witness stated that as to what Roshan and Chhagan were doing along with Krishna, he is not aware. He stated that as to who caused injury to Krishna, he is not aware. The exact words stated by this witness are that " ^^d`".kk ds fdlus pksV ekjh Fkh eq>s irk ugh gS eSus ugh ns[kk FkkA^^ This witness (PW-1) stated that he had attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). In cross-examination by ld. Public Prosecutor, this witness stated that Krishna belongs to his brotherhood. Krishna deceased was son of the sister of his father. The houses of Roshan and Chhagan are also situated in the same street. The witness stated that Roshan and Chhagan were also relatives of Krishna. This witness stated that he heard the noise and came out of the house. The witness has specifically stated that it was wrong to suggest that when he came out of the house, the fight was going-on. The witness stated that he only saw that Krishna was lying on the ground. The exact words stated by this witness are that " ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd eS tc ?kj ls ckgj vk;k Fkk rc bues >xMk gks jgk gks cfYd d`".kk iM+k gqvk FkkA^^ Thus, Ganesh (PW-1) who was introduced by the prosecution as an eye witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. Another star witness of the prosecution, namely Vijay (PW-3) has also not advanced the case of the prosecution, as he has only stated in the Court that he knew Krishna and he attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). Another star witness of the prosecution, namely Vijay (PW-3) has also not advanced the case of the prosecution, as he has only stated in the Court that he knew Krishna and he attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). In the cross-examination by the defence Counsel, this witness has stated that he is not aware as to what has been written in the Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1), as he is an illiterate and nobody had read the contents of the Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). Hotilal (PW-2) is father of deceased and a first informant. As noted earlier, he is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. He was present at his house. Ganesh and Vijay relayed information to him that his son - Krishna is lying in the street. In the Court Hotilal (PW-2) has also stated that Vijay and Ganesh informed him that his son has expired. He reached at the Government Hospital, Bharatpur and saw that his son was lying dead. The exact words stated by this witness are that ^^eq>s fot; o x.ks'k us lwpuk fn;k fd d`".kk ej x;k gSA fQj eS ljdkjh vLirky Hkjriqj igqapk o ns[kk fd esjk iq= d`".kk ejk iM+k FkkA^^ This witness had also attested memos regarding recovery from the spot and preparation of the site-plan etc. Ranveer (PW-4) in the Court stated that Krishna son of Hotilal was not known to him. This witness stated that the Police had obtained his signatures on the site-plan (Exhibit-P/5). Ramveer (PW-5) in the Court stated that he had attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). Lekhraj (PW-6) also in the Court stated that he had attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). Sarnam Singh (PW-7) in the Court stated that he had attested site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/5). This witness further stated that the site-plan was not prepared in his presence. This witness admitted that the recovered bed-sheet was taken into possession vide Exhibit-P/6 and the same contents his signatures. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. In cross-examination by ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor, this witness stated that he had signed site-plan, (Exhibit-P/5) and Exhibit-P/6 recovery memo of the bed-sheet, on the asking of the Police. Upon cross-examination by the defence Counsel, this witness stated that he had singed blank paper. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. In cross-examination by ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor, this witness stated that he had signed site-plan, (Exhibit-P/5) and Exhibit-P/6 recovery memo of the bed-sheet, on the asking of the Police. Upon cross-examination by the defence Counsel, this witness stated that he had singed blank paper. The exacts words stated by this witness are as under:- ^^eq>s ugh irk fd iqfyl us iz ih 5 o 6 ij esjs gLrk{kj fdl ckr ds djk;s Fks esjs gLrk{kj djkrs le; ;g dkxt dksjk FkkA iqfyl us tks fy[kk gS og ihNs fy[kk gksxkA^^ Constable - Indal (PW-8) stated that on 10.09.2015 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur. On the said date, on the disclosure made by the accused, he got darat (sickle) weapon of offence recovered and the same was taken into possession by the Police vide memo Exhibit-P/10. Constable - Devendra Singh (PW-9) stated that he had carried the sealed packets to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur vide Exhibit-P/12. A.S.I. - Ghure Lal (PW-10) on 10.06.2015 was posted as Constable and was Incharge of the Malkhana at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur. He proved the link evidence by stating that the articles deposited with him were handed over by him to Constable - Devendra Singh (PW-9). Dr. Ashok Singh (PW-11) being Medical Jurist at Government Hospital, Bharatpur, conducted autopsy on the deadbody of deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased - Krishna died due to incised wound caused on the right side of the chest. S.I. Mukesh Choudhary (PW-12) being Investigating Officer of the case, has stated that on 10.09.2015 Hotilal (PW-2), father of deceased, had produced one blood stained old bed-sheet in which the dead-body of the deceased was wrapped. 14. The prosecution, in order to secure conviction of the appellant, has relied upon the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur (Exhibit-P/21). As per said report (Exhibit-P/21) submitted by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur, the bed-sheet in which the dead-body was wrapped, is stained with human blood, group of which was 'AB'. The darati (sickle) weapon of offence recovered from the accused was also sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur and the same is also stained with human blood. The darati (sickle) weapon of offence recovered from the accused was also sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur and the same is also stained with human blood. As per report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Bharatpur (Exhibit-P/21), the group of the blood found on the darati (sickle) was inconclusive. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, except to say that the bed-sheet in which the dead-body of the deceased was wrapped and the darati (sickle) weapon of offence, which was recovered, both are stained with human blood, could not point out any other incriminating evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. To recapitulate, Ganesh (PW-1) who was cited as an eye witness of the alleged occurrence, has turned hostile to the prosecution. Hotilal (PW-2), first informant had reached at the spot after the alleged injury was caused. Vijay (PW-3), Ramveer (PW-5) and Lekhraj (PW-6) attested Inquest report (Exhibit-P/1). Ranveer (PW-4) had attested the site-plan of the spot vide Exhibit-P/5. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the Police had obtained his signatures on the blank paper. Sarnam Singh (PW-7) had attested the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/5) and memo of recovery of the bed-sheet (Exhibit-P/6). In cross-examination also, this witness has stated that his signatures were obtained on the blank paper. Constable - Indal (PW-8) is only witness to the recovery of the darat (sickle) weapon of offence, (Exhibit-P10). Constable - Devendra Singh (PW-9) and A.S.I. -Ghure Lal (PW-10) have been examined only to prove the link evidence. On the basis of the recovery of the darati (sickle) weapon of offence, we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellant. 16. We are sorry to state that the prosecution has led no legally admissible evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. 17. Consequently, we accept D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 401/2018 and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellant by the trial Judge for want of legally admissible evidence. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. 18. Having set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellant, we direct the trial Court to release the appellant forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. 18. Having set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellant, we direct the trial Court to release the appellant forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely Roshan is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 19. We are conscious that we have extended benefit of doubt to the appellant, as the prosecution has failed to prove on record any legally admissible evidence. However, we find that the legal heirs of deceased - Krishna, who was aged 23 years, are entitled to compensation, as per Victims Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 20. We direct the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur to pay compensation as per Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased - Krishna. The Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur shall take all active steps for payment of the compensation under Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. in consonance with the Victim Compensation Scheme prepared by the State of Rajasthan. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur.