ORDER : 1. Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common judgment/order dated 06.04.2015, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mohan Singh @ Moyna elder brother of the complainant-Bhagwan Singh was doing work of repairing Electric Submersible Motors. Mohan Singh @ Moyna was working in the shop of Babli at Govindgarh. On 20.11.2012, complainant came to know that dead body of his brother, alongwith his motor-cycle, was lying on Berka road. Complainant reached the spot and found that his brother had died on account of injuries suffered by him. At night, Mohan Singh @ Moyna had taken meals with Mukhan Singh Badika, his cousin brother. Mohan Singh @ Moyna had left after telling Mukhan Singh that he was going to the house of Rampuriya Meena in Berka Jungle. On earlier occasions also Mohan Singh @ Moyna had gone to fix electric motor there. 3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.342 dated 20.11.2012 was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC at Police Station Kathumar. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and their co-accused Teji. 5. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302 and 201 IPC, whereas charge was framed under Section 201 IPC against co-accused Teji. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 6. During trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was a case of no evidence. Material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. Trial court had placed reliance on the statement of PW-5 Kavita while ordering the conviction of the appellants. However, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-5 Kavita as her statement had been recorded by the police after 18 days and PW-5 Kavita in her cross-examination has deposed that her statement was never recorded by the police nor she was ever questioned by the police. However, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-5 Kavita as her statement had been recorded by the police after 18 days and PW-5 Kavita in her cross-examination has deposed that her statement was never recorded by the police nor she was ever questioned by the police. She also stated that she was making the statement for the first time in the Court. 8. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal. 9. Present case relates to murder of Mohan Singh @ Moyna. 10. Incident, as per the prosecution case, had occurred in the night intervening 19.11.2012 and 20.11.2012. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box has deposed that as per the contents of the FIR. 11. Material witnesses PW-6 Shiv Singh, PW-7 Mukhan Singh, PW-8 Rajendra (witness of recovery of weapon), PW-10 Khan Singh and PW-11 Sugreev(witness of recovery of weapon) had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. 12. Thus, as per the complainant, deceased had told Mukhan Singh, PW-7 that he was going to the house of Rampuriya Meena in Berka Jungle but Mukhan Singh, PW-7 while appearing in the witness-box has not deposed with regard to the said fact. So far as statement of the complainant is concerned, the same is rendered merely hearsay. 13. We are left with the statement of Kavita, PW-5 who is the daughter of appellant-Prem. Kavita, PW-5 deposed that she knew Mohan Singh @ Moyna who was dealing with repair of electric motors. About two years ago, he had come to their house. She did not know how he had died. At about 12 midnight she heard the cries of Mohan Singh @ Moyna and she came out of her room and saw that appellants had murdered him. Her mother Smt. Prem was present in the house. She had seen Bijay Singh inflicting injuries to Mohan Singh @ Moyna with a subble. She stopped Bijay Singh from doing so but he took the dead body of Mohan Singh @ Moyna on his motor-cycle. She along with her mother had seen the crime. On the said day, Bijay Singh has slept in another hut. She further stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. In her cross-examination, she stated that her parents were sleeping in a separate hut. On hearing cries, she had come out and woken her mother. She along with her mother had seen the crime. On the said day, Bijay Singh has slept in another hut. She further stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. In her cross-examination, she stated that her parents were sleeping in a separate hut. On hearing cries, she had come out and woken her mother. Thereafter, she had gone along with her mother to the hut where Mohan Singh @ Moyna was lying dead. She stated that police had come to their house in the morning of the incident and she was present in the house. She had not narrated the occurrence to the police and they had not made any enquiry from her. She further stated that any statement recorded by the police was false. 14. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-5 Kavita as the said witness was present in the house, when the police had come in the morning after the incident but her statement was not recorded by the police. A perusal of the record reveals that the statement of Kavita, PW-5 was recorded on 08.12.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Kavita, PW-5 was not confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. because she had denied that she had made any statement to the police rather she had stated in her cross-examination that she was making statement before the court for the first time and denied that police had recorded her statement after 17/18 days of the incident. Thus, the testimony of Kavita, PW-5 fails to inspire confidence and can not be made the basis for ordering conviction of the appellants. 15. Prosecution had not examined the husband of Smt. Prem as a witness. 16. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials who have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted during the case. 17. Since in the present case, material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and the statement of Kavita, PW-5 does not inspire confidence, thus, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Learned trial Court fell in error in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 18. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. Impugned judgement/order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Trial Court are set aside. Learned trial Court fell in error in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 18. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. Impugned judgement/order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Trial Court are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellant-Bijay Singh who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Bijay Singh and Smt. Prem are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, and surety bond of the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants Bijay Singh and Smt. Prem on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.