JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. 1. All the seven appellants along with others faced trial in Sessions case No. 94/2012 before learned Additional Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh and where found guilty for offence under Sections 302/149, 148 and 342/149 IPC. The learned trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 302/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further two months rigorous imprisonment was ordered. For offence under Section 148 IPC one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded and in default of payment, additional 10 days imprisonment was ordered. For offence under Section 342/149 IPC, six month rigorous imprisonment was awarded along with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, five days simple imprisonment was ordered. Sentences are to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction dated 17.06.2015 and order of sentence of the same date are under challenge in this appeal. 2. It is worth to mention here that besides the appellants seven others were also named in the FIR. Out of total 14 accused persons named in the FIR, four persons were not sent up by the Police for trial, they were Sukha Singh @ Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Preet Singh, Amarjeet Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur. However in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the learned trial Judge summoned them to face the trial and accordingly they faced trial. Two of the accused namely Gurdayal Singh and Lal Singh died before the trial court judgment. Co-accused Tarsem Singh @ Chema Singh, Sukha Singh @ Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Preet Singh, Amarjeep Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur were allowed benefit of doubt by the learned trial Judge by the same Judgment on the ground that the Investigating Officer PW-13 deposed that during the investigation he had not found the allegation against the acquitted accused as true. 3. Jaspreet Singh, the informant of the case, challenged the acquittal of Tarsem Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Amarjeep Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 676/2015. While dismissing the aforesaid appeal on merit a Division Bench of this Court concluded as follows: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. 3. Jaspreet Singh, the informant of the case, challenged the acquittal of Tarsem Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Amarjeep Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 676/2015. While dismissing the aforesaid appeal on merit a Division Bench of this Court concluded as follows: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. Admittedly there is no specific allegation against any of the accused persons, ....." "In our opinion, when no specific allegation to inflict injury and participation is levelled against respondents No. 2 to 6 nor any evidence of enmity with deceased is on record against the respondents No. 2 to 6, then there is no question to hold that error has been committed by the trial court in acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 6 from the charges levelled against them." 4. Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi learned counsel for the appellants contends that finding of the co-ordinate Bench as above in the same matter recorded after appreciation of the same set of evidences would bind this Bench. As per the prosecution evidence there is no specific accusation of infliction of any injury by the appellants. 5. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report submitted by Jaspreet Singh (PW-3) is that at about 8.00 a.m. on 12.04.2011 he along with his father deceased Puran Singh and mother Baljeet Kaur (PW-1) were going to "Path Bhog" at the house of Dr. Satpal Singh (DW-1). As soon they reached near the house of Karnail Singh, all the accused persons armed with Dandas and axes intercepted them, took the father of the informant from the motorcycle and carried him inside the house of Gurdeep Singh. The informant telephonically reported the matter to Jagmeet Singh (PW-4), cousin brother of the informant. Jagmeet Singh and Harpal Kaur (PW-8) came there and all the four persons entered into the house of Gurdayal Singh to rescue Puran Singh but they saw that Gurdeep Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur were also involved in commission of assault against the Puran Singh. The accused persons had tied Puran Singh with shackles. After that Puran Singh died at the spot. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether fifteen witnesses and the defence also produced 9 witnesses. The learned trial Judge has referred in detail depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as of defence witnesses. 6. Mr. The accused persons had tied Puran Singh with shackles. After that Puran Singh died at the spot. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether fifteen witnesses and the defence also produced 9 witnesses. The learned trial Judge has referred in detail depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as of defence witnesses. 6. Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi learned counsel for the appellant assailed conviction of the appellant on the ground that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities inasmuch as the occurrence took place at 8.00 a.m. whereas written report was submitted at about 02.00 p.m. The evidence on record depict the reason of deliberate delayed information by the prosecution. It has come on the record that first the police reached at the place of occurrence and completed formalities regarding seizure of material, taking photographs of dead body etc. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased including the informant reached at the place of occurrence where they were interrogated about any suspicion on anyone to be involved in the murder. They simply stated that they would inform afterwards. In the aforesaid circumstances the delay assumes importance as chances of concoction can not be ruled out. Learned counsel contends that the officer incharge deposed that as soon as he got the news of murder of Puran Singh, he sent the Head Constable Rameshwar Lal at the place of occurrence. Neither Rameshwar Lal was examined nor the contemporaneous Roznamcha entry produced in evidence. It is definite case of PW-1 wife of the deceased that the deceased left the house after taking food. The Doctor who performed the postmortem examination is specific that the stomach of deceased was empty, vide evidence of PW-6 Dr. Lalit. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of Court towards statement of PW-3 informant who deposed that it were co-accused Lal Singh since deceased, Sukha Singh @ Sukhdev Singh since acquitted Preet Singh since acquitted, Amarjeet Kaur since acquitted and Gurdeep Kaur who were assaulting the deceased and others were standing there and exhorting the assailants. PW-3 conveyed the same fact to his uncle PW-4 Jagmeet Singh. Therefore, the appellants were not assailants and the so-called assailants got acquittal and confirmation of acquittal by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of Division Bench got finality. 7. Mr. PW-3 conveyed the same fact to his uncle PW-4 Jagmeet Singh. Therefore, the appellants were not assailants and the so-called assailants got acquittal and confirmation of acquittal by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of Division Bench got finality. 7. Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued in favour of trial court judgment relying on evidence of PW-1 and 3 and other corroborative evidences, however, could not substantiate as to how finding of the Division Bench recorded in the Criminal Appeal 676/2015 does not bind us. Learned counsel could not explain the contradiction between the testimony of PW-1 that the deceased left the house after taking food and the Doctor did not find anything but the empty stomach. Learned counsel for the State failed to explain to the satisfaction of this Court regarding presence of so-called eye-witness PW-1 Baljeet Kaur or the informant (PW-3) at the time of occurrence. 8. There is evidence to suggest that the murder of Puran Singh was committed by inflicting injury on his person from different weapons. Hence, the question before the Court is whether the prosecution has specifically proved that the appellants were real participants in the murder of Puran Singh? 9. We are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 676/2015 on appreciation of the same set of evidences would be binding upon us specially when the judgment of the Division Bench has got finality. Therefore, this appeal is bound to succeed on this ground alone. 10. Moreover, it has come in the evidence of PW-4 that all accused persons(14) are descendants of common ancestor. It is case of the defence that some unknown persons might have committed the murder of Puran Singh and would have thrown the dead body in the campus of Gurdayal Singh taking advantage of the absence of family members of Gurdayal Singh who had gone to attend the function at the house of Satpal Singh (DW-1). PW-8 has deposed that the deceased was a notorious man and used to quarrel with anyone. PW-7 Badri Prasad deposed that when he reached at the place of occurrence no family members of the deceased were there, however, Police was already there. When the Police called the family members they came after about 20 minutes. PW-8 has deposed that the deceased was a notorious man and used to quarrel with anyone. PW-7 Badri Prasad deposed that when he reached at the place of occurrence no family members of the deceased were there, however, Police was already there. When the Police called the family members they came after about 20 minutes. The Police asked the informant to submit a written report of the incident but the informant declined to give the report at that point of time. When the Police asked about any suspicion against anyone regarding involvement in the murder of Puran Singh, the informant said that he will inform later on. The Dy. S.P. Mr. Yaad Ram DW-8 deposed that he had also gone to the place of occurrence. The officer incharge of Police Station was already there but this witness could not know whether the family members of the deceased were there or not. DW-1 Satpal Singh examined by defence who was cited prosecution witness, he deposed that on 12.04.2011 there was a function in his house, he had invited several people, accused Gurdayal Lal along with family members had already reached at about 07.30 a.m. and accused Kulwinder came about 09.00 a.m. There is no cross examination to dispute the aforesaid statement of this witness. It is prosecution case also that there was function in the house of Satpal Singh. The informant and his family members were also going there to attend the function. DW-2 Raghuveer Singh a cited prosecution witness has deposed that he saw the vehicle of Police at the door of Gurdayal Singh, then he went inside the house of Gurdayal Singh and found dead body of Puran Singh. Gurdayal Singh was not there then the witness went to the house of Satpal Singh where he found named family members of Gurdayal Singh. The witness was cross-examined by the prosecution but he could not be shaken from his aforesaid version. DW-3 Sukhminder Singh had deposed that when the informant and his uncle came to the house of Gurdayal Singh after getting news of murder of Puran Singh they were asked by the Police whether they have any suspicion against anyone. Then the informant and his uncle said that they would report afterwards. Two senior Police Officers were also present at the time. Other witnesses deposed that some of the accused were at different places at the time of occurrence. Then the informant and his uncle said that they would report afterwards. Two senior Police Officers were also present at the time. Other witnesses deposed that some of the accused were at different places at the time of occurrence. 11. Thus on careful consideration of the evidence on the record it appears that the informant or his family members were not there either at the time of occurrence or till arrival of the police. Therefore they do not appear to be the witnesses of the occurrence. They declined to disclose the identity of assailants to the Police at the spot. In the circumstances, chances of concoction after deliberation can not be ruled out. The Head Constable Rameshwar Lal the first Policeman to reach the crime scene was not produced by the prosecution nor the Roznamcha entry was produced to substantiate what was recorded therein regarding the occurrence of death of Puran Singh. The Family members of the deceased including his son have deposed that they saw the acquitted persons committing assaulted and the appellants standing there and exhorted them to assault. When victim was in complete clutches of the accused persons who were 14 in number, it is not believable that the appellants would be there for exhortation only. The statement of wife of the deceased that the deceased had taken food does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Therefore the chance of non-disclosure of real occurrence can not be completely ruled out. As per the evidence of the Medical Jurist PW-6 Dr. Lalit, the time of death of Puran Singh was between 12-24 hours from the time of autopsy which was conducted at 03.30 p.m. on 12.04.2011. Thus, a grave doubt is created that the incident did take place at the time & manner alleged by the first informant & the other material witnesses. The prosecution has not come up with real occurrence wherein murder of Puran Singh was committed. Thus, a grave doubt is created that the incident did take place at the time & manner alleged by the first informant & the other material witnesses. The prosecution has not come up with real occurrence wherein murder of Puran Singh was committed. Non-examination of Rameshwar Lal and non-production of Police Station Rojnamcha creates further doubt that the prosecution deliberately suppressed what Rameshwar Lal had noticed at his first visit at the place of occurrence or what was the information to the Police on the basis whereon Rameshwar Lal was sent to the place of occurrence by the S.H.O. The testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 further leaves room for doubt as PW-1 says that the deceased left the house after taking food but the Doctor found the stomach empty. There is no denial that the murder was committed after a few hours of the deceased allegedly taking the food. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 17.06.2015 is hereby quashed and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges and their conviction is hereby set aside. This appeal stands accordingly allowed. Let the appellants be set free at once. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- 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 appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.