JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The accused appellant Ran Singh stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.12/2010: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- One month's additional Imprisonment Under Section 450 IPC 7 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 1 month's additional Rigorous Imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case emanates from the hand-written report (Ex.P/1) submitted by Satveer (PW-1) to the SHO, Police Station Bhadra on 22.06.2010 wherein, it was alleged that the informant's brother Krishan Kumar and sister-in-law Saraswati (Bhabhi) were residing in the Village Bojasar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. Their son Rohtash is employed in the RAC and is posted at Bikaner and the daughter Manju is married and used to live at her matrimonial home. The informant claims to have received information that Krishan Kumar and Saraswati had been murdered in the night. On this, the informant reached the place of incident and saw the dead bodies of his brother and sister-in-law lying in the chowk of the house with wounds on their necks that seemed to him to have been inflicted by means of a sharp object. Blood was splattered around the cots and on the floor. The walls were also stained with blood. Krishan Kumar's body was lying on the cot whereas, that of Saraswati was lying on the floor. The informant inquired from the neighbours on which, he found that his nephews Sunil and Govind had left Krishan Kumar's house after watching television in the night at about 11 o' clock. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar and Saraswati locked the house and went to sleep after switching on the cooler. At about 1 o' clock in the night, Hariram, the maternal nephew of the informant, heard the cries of a woman on which, he called Arjun. They tried to look around but did not find or see anyone. Krishan Kumar's house was locked from inside and the cooler was running. At about 1 o' clock in the night, Hariram, the maternal nephew of the informant, heard the cries of a woman on which, he called Arjun. They tried to look around but did not find or see anyone. Krishan Kumar's house was locked from inside and the cooler was running. In the morning at about 6 o' clock, the buffaloes had started grunting on which, Sunil and Hariram, tried to look inside the house by scaling the wall and saw the deadbodies of Krishan and Saraswati lying in the courtyard. Thereafter, they let the villagers know of the incident and the police was informed. The informant expressed his suspicion with regard to the said incident sating that some unknown persons had trespassed into the house and had murdered his brother and sister-in-law. The written report to this effect was submitted by Shri Satveer to the SHO Dinesh Rajora at the scene of occurrence on 22.06.2010 at 07.30 am. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.308/2010 was registered at the Police Station Bhadra for the offences under Sections 450 and 302 IPC and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the dead bodies were subjected to postmortem. The site inspection plan and other memoranda, were prepared and the blood stained pieces of earth, etc. were secured. The apparels worn by the deceased and a clump of human hair gripped in the hand of Smt. Saraswati were also seized. During the course of investigation, Satveer was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he alleged that the villagers had seen his nephew Ran Singh son of Mangilal loitering around the scene of occurrence with an axe and that he was missing thereafter. He further alleged that a dispute relating to throwing of garbage in a plot was going on between Ran Singh and Krishan Kumar and thus, a suspicion was cast that Ran Singh might have murdered the two deceased. The appellant Ran Singh was arrested 22.06.2010 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/13). The I.O. recorded his informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/44 and Ex.P/45) and recovered his blood stained pants and a blood stained axe vide seizure memos (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/16). Statements of Banwari and Prahlad were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.06.2010. Banwari alleged that he saw the appellant going towards the house of Krishan Kumar with an axe in his hand. Statements of Banwari and Prahlad were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.06.2010. Banwari alleged that he saw the appellant going towards the house of Krishan Kumar with an axe in his hand. He returned a little later and at that time, he was empty-handed. Prahlad alleged that he had heard some cries in the night on which, he came out of his home and saw Ran Singh jumping out from the house of Krishan Kumar and going towards his own house. He tried to confront Ran Singh but, he did not reply. 4. Be that as it may. After effecting the recoveries as aforesaid and after completing the formalities of investigation as per law, the investigating officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellant in the court concerned for the offences under Sections 450 and 302 IPC. As the offences were exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. Charges were framed against the accused for these offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and 64 documents were exhibited in support of its case. Upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. After appreciating the submissions advanced by the defence and the prosecution, and evaluating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case for oblique motive. As per him, the evidence of the socalled eye witnesses Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7) is totally unreliable and cooked up so as to create evidence against the appellant. He contended that if it is to be believed that these witnesses saw the accused with an axe while he was going towards the house of the deceased and while he jumped out there from, then, natural human conduct required that they should have disclosed this fact immediately when the dead bodies were found. He contended that if it is to be believed that these witnesses saw the accused with an axe while he was going towards the house of the deceased and while he jumped out there from, then, natural human conduct required that they should have disclosed this fact immediately when the dead bodies were found. He referred to the statement of Satveer (PW-1), the first informant, and more particularly, his cross-examination wherein, the witness admitted that he reached the house of Krishan Kumar at about 6 o' clock and that Banwari and Prahlad were present there. He further referred to the emphatic version of this witness wherein, he categorically stated that Banwari and Prahlad did not tell him that they had seen Ran Singh in a suspicious condition at or around the time of the incident. He submitted that the first informant and these two witnesses are closely related to each other and reside in a small close knit community and thus, by no stretch of imagination, can it be believed or accepted that Banwari and Prahlad would keep silent and not divulge this fact if at all they had seen the appellant on the fateful night. He thus urged that the conduct of these witnesses is highly suspicious and makes their entire testimony doubtful. Regarding the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused, the contention of Shri Moti Singh was that the trousers recovered in furtherance of the information provided by the accused, did not test positive presence of human blood when the same was subjected to chemical and serological examination and thus, the recovery cannot be considered to be incriminating in nature. As regards the axe, Shri Moti Singh contended that the recovery was made from a septic tank in the Baada of one Omprakash Dudi in the late hours of 23.06.2010 and thus, it is impossible to believe that blood stains would still be available despite the fact that the axe was lying submerged in the filthy water of the septic tank for more than 48 hours after the incident. He thus urged that the evidence of the witnesses Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7) deserves to be discarded and that the recoveries made at the instance appear to have been planted and do not give any conclusive evidence regarding the guilt of the accused. He thus urged that the evidence of the witnesses Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7) deserves to be discarded and that the recoveries made at the instance appear to have been planted and do not give any conclusive evidence regarding the guilt of the accused. He thus urged that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the accused appellant should be acquitted of the charges. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Moti Singh. He contended that the witnesses Banwari and Prahlad admittedly have no animosity against the appellant so that they could be inspired to falsely implicate him by deposing falsely. He contended that these witnesses gave natural and cogent evidence stating that the appellant was seen going towards the house of the deceased with an axe in his hand. Soon thereafter, some cries were heard and the appellant was seen coming out from the house of the deceased by scaling the rear wall. A little later, he managed to dispose of the axe and was seen empty handed while he was going from the front of the house of Krishan Kumar. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, this evidence coupled with the factum of recovery of the blood stained axe made in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act bearing blood of same group as that of the deceased, and the fact that the appellant was having inimical relations with Krishan Kumar, are sufficient to conclude that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record and in a just and appropriate manner and hence, as per him, the conclusions drawn by the trial court and the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant in the impugned judgment do not require any interference whatsoever. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. The entire case of prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. The entire case of prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence. The trial court utilised the following circumstances so as to record the appellant's guilt vide the impugned judgment: (i) that the appellant was on inimical terms with the deceased owing to the dispute of throwing garbage in a plot; (ii) that the appellant was seen going towards the house of deceased Krishan Kumar and Smt. Saraswati sometime before the incident with an axe in his hand; a little later, cries were heard and the accused, holding an axe in his hand, was seen jumping out from the house of the deceased by scaling the wall; (iii) That the appellant gave multiple informations to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to recoveries of the axe bearing blood group matching with that of the deceased and a pair of his own trousers having blood of human origin. 9. We now proceed to analyze the prosecution evidence in reference to the above facts and circumstances and to find out whether the same are reliable or not. 10. The most significant fact which emerges from the record is that Satveer (PW-1), upon being cross-examined, categorically admitted that when he reached at the place of incident at about 6 O'clock in the morning, he found Banwari and Prahlad present there. The trial court, while appreciating the evidence, has affirmatively held that Banwari and Prahlad were closely related to the deceased and the first informant Satveer. Tested on the anvil of natural human conduct, it is impossible to believe that despite having seen the dead bodies of their close relatives Krishan and Smt. Saraswati lying in the house with their own eyes, Banwari and Prahlad would keep silent and would not divulge immediately that they had seen the appellant herein loitering near the place of incident in suspicious condition with an axe proximate to the time of the double murder. Had these witnesses really seen the accused loitering around and jumping out from the house of the deceased with the axe as they respectively claim, then as expected of natural human behaviour, they would definitely have divulged this fact to the first informant and to the police officials who reached the village at around 07.30 am. The prosecution has attributed a strong motive for the incident to the appellant. Manifestly, the deceased, appellant and the witnesses reside in a small village and are related to each other and thus, if at all, a dispute was going on between two deceased and the accused appellant, the same would not remain a secret. Banwari as well as Prahlad, both admitted in their cross-examinations that they had an inkling about a dispute going on between the accused and the deceased Krishan Kumar. Despite this, they chose to keep silent about their claim of having seen the appellant near the place of incident proximately when the murders took place. We are of an unexceptional view that silence of the witnesses makes their testimony totally unworthy of credence. There is another strong reason which persuades us to discard the testimony of Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7) as being unreliable witnesses. Satveer (PW-1), in his cross-examination, admitted that his uncles Banwari and Prahlad had seen the accused loitering around with an axe proximate to the time of incident. He categorically stated that when he reached the house of Krishan at about 6 o'clock, Banwari and Prahlad were present there, but at that point of time, they did not tell him of the incident and that they divulged this fact after about an hour or so. Manifestly, the police officials were present in the village for the whole of the day after the incident because the investigation was carried out right at the place of the incident till late hours of 22.06.2010. Statements of Banwari and Prahlad were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 23.06.2010. Thus, non-disclosure to the police officials on 22.06.2010 that Banwari and Prahlad had seen the accused loitering around the place of the incident with an axe and jumping out from the house of the deceased while holding the axe, creates a strong doubt that the entire story putforth by the prosecution in this regard is totally false and fabricated. 11. Thus, non-disclosure to the police officials on 22.06.2010 that Banwari and Prahlad had seen the accused loitering around the place of the incident with an axe and jumping out from the house of the deceased while holding the axe, creates a strong doubt that the entire story putforth by the prosecution in this regard is totally false and fabricated. 11. Satveer clearly stated in his evidence that both Banwari and Prahlad were present at the place of the incident when he reached there. Banwari also admitted in his cross-examination that he was present at the scene of the occurrence. He further alleged that he had told Satveer that he had seen Ran Singh in the night time loitering around with an axe. If at all, there was an iota of truth in this version of Banwari then, there was no occasion for Satveer to mention in the written report (Ex.P/1) that no one was seen or heard in or around the scene of the occurrence in the night time. The relevant para of the FIR is extracted and reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- 12. Prahlad (PW-7), in his examination-in-chief, claimed that he reached the place of the occurrence in the morning and saw both the dead-bodies with his own eyes. However, in crossexamination, he stated as below:- 13. Manifestly thus, there is a grave contradiction in this regard in the statement of Prahlad who, in his examination-in-chief, claimed to have seen the dead-bodies with his own eyes, whereas, in cross-examination, he took a u-turn and stated that he went away for his work as per routine in the morning at 5 o'clock and returned at about 01.30 in the afternoon and when he came to know of the murders, he approached the police officials and told them what he had seen. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the story as divulged by the witness Prahlad (PW-7) in his testimony that proximate to the time of incident, he saw the accused jumping out from the house of the deceased holding an axe in his hand on the fateful day, is totally unbelievable and that both the witnesses viz. Banwari and Prahlad were cooked up by the prosecution to somehow or the other create evidence against the accused for ulterior motive. Banwari and Prahlad were cooked up by the prosecution to somehow or the other create evidence against the accused for ulterior motive. Once, the evidence of these two witnesses is eschewed from consideration, there remains no substantive evidence whatsoever so as to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. As per the statement of Rohtash (PW11), son of the deceased persons, the appellant and his mother Saraswati used to quarrel owing to a dispute of throwing trash on a plot. This dispute if at all existing cannot be considered to be of such magnitude which could have infuriated or incited the accused to commit the murder of the two deceased persons. Thus, the theory of enmity, which has been portrayed so as to impute motive to the accused, is also far too flimsy and far-fetched so as to give rise to an inference that the accused could have gone to the extent of murdering his two relatives for a trivial dispute of throwing garbage in a plot. So far as the recoveries are concerned, manifestly, the pair of trousers, recovered at the instance of the accused appellant did not test positive for the presence of the blood group of either of the two deceased as is manifest from the FSL Report (Ex.P/47) and thus, the same cannot be considered to be incriminating. So far as the recovery of the axe is concerned, we are of the firm opinion that as the recovery was effected after nearly 48 hours of the incident (at about 23.06.2010 at 03.45 pm.) vide recovery memo (Ex.P/16) and since, the axe was lying submerged in a septic tank, the possibility of the same retaining any trace of blood was negligible more-so because the axe was apparently thrown away by the accused just after the incident and the fresh blood stains if any would definitely have got dissolved/disintegrated in the filthy water of the septic tank. That apart, as per the recovery memo (Ex.P/16), the axe was recovered from the dirty water of the septic tank and thus, it was bound to be smudged in dirt/filth, when the same was received at FSL. However, the FSL report (Ex.P/47) does not reveal the presence of any mud, filth, etc. on the axe. Thus, the recovery of the axe also becomes doubtful. However, the FSL report (Ex.P/47) does not reveal the presence of any mud, filth, etc. on the axe. Thus, the recovery of the axe also becomes doubtful. The trial court drew much water out of the fact that a few hair were found struck on the head as well as handle of the axe and were found to be of human origin when examined by the FSL vide report (Ex.P/53). Suffice it to say that human hair are bound to be found in a septic tank which is used to store discharged water from bathrooms, toilets, etc. Thus, presence of human hair on the axe allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant from the septic tank in the yard of Omprakash Dudi cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance unless the hair matched with those of either of the deceased. No such report was procured by the prosecution. Otherwise also, law is well settled that the recovery of weapon of offence can be used to corroborate substantive evidence which is considered sufficient to implicate/incriminate an accused in the crime. For substantive evidence, the case of prosecution is principally founded on the testimony of the witnesses Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7) whom we have discarded and disbelieved as being unreliable witness. Thus, doubtful recovery of an axe made at the instance of the appellant cannot be considered to be incriminating or vital enough so as to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. We conclude that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment whereby implicit reliance was placed on the testimony of the witnesses Banwari (PW-6) and Prahlad (PW-7), and the recoveries allegedly made in furtherance of the informations provided by the accused appellant, do not stand to scrutiny in light of the discussion made hereinabove and hence, are liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.12/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Ran Singh S/o Mange Ram @ Mangi Ram is acquitted of both the charges. The appellant is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. The appellant Ran Singh S/o Mange Ram @ Mangi Ram is acquitted of both the charges. The appellant is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellant 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 appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.