JUDGMENT : RAJNESH OSWAL, J. 1. This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under sections 302, 452, 149, 120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the learned trial court mis-appreciated the evidence despite the fact that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt, but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondents. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that PW-1 Constable Mohd Salim has supported the prosecution story in toto, but despite that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents by wrongly appreciating the evidence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Anand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that all the projected eye witnesses except PW-1, Constable Mohd. Salim, have been turned hostile and further that PW-Mohd Salim is in fact not an eye witness and as such, the learned trial court was correct in acquitting the respondents. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The brief case of the prosecution is that one Vipan Kumar Luthra S/o Ved Luthra R/o Mohalla Malhotra, Pir Mitha, Jammu lodged an oral report at Police Station, Pir Mitha in an injured condition on 16.09.2003, wherein he stated that at about 7.00 PM, while he and his servant were working in his Jewellery Shop at Pir Mitha, Jammu, three unknown persons having Kirch in their hands entered his shop and threatened to kill him and his servant and asked them to handover all the ornaments and cash to them. He and his servant made hue and cry and the said persons attacked him as well as his servant with Kirch. He suffered an injury on the finger of his left hand from the blow, while he tried to avert the blow. In the meantime, some persons came on spot and they tried to catch them. One accused inflicted blows with Kirch on the chest of Raj Kumar @ Sonu, who was working as servant in the jewellery shop of Ashwani Kumar S/o Tarsem Lal at Pir Mitha. Raj Kumar sustained serious injuries and fell down. In the meantime, some persons came on spot and they tried to catch them. One accused inflicted blows with Kirch on the chest of Raj Kumar @ Sonu, who was working as servant in the jewellery shop of Ashwani Kumar S/o Tarsem Lal at Pir Mitha. Raj Kumar sustained serious injuries and fell down. The other accused in the meantime fled away from the spot. The accused who made murderous assault on Raj Kumar was caught by the people, who disclosed his name as Sher Singh S/o Kartar Singh and the names of other accused as Ashok Kumar Parbhat Singh, Rashpal Singh of Udhampur. 7. On receipt of this oral report, FIR bearing No. 39/2010 under Sections 307/452/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was registered at Police Station Pir Mitha. The Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector-Gandharb Singh visited the spot and prepared the site plan, collected the sample of plain soil and blood stained soil. Blood stained Kirch was also seized and statements of the witnesses were also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. As Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries during his treatment, so offence under section 302 RPC was also added. The Investigating Officer during investigation found that the complainant was having enmity with accused Rajesh Kumar, who hatched a conspiracy with other accused in order to take revenge with the complainant. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the accused, it was decided that these accused persons would commit murder of Vipan Kumar, who was working at Jewellery shop and would rob gold, silver and other articles lying in the shop. Rajesh Kumar assured Rashpal Singh that he would send Rs. 50,000/- at Udhampur. Thereafter, accused Rashpal Singh in the last week of August prepared Sher Singh, Ashok Singh, Parbhat Singh, Balwan Singh, Uttam Singh, Chamail Singh and Sonu, who were working as Pithus and Masseurs at Katra and brought them to Jammu. Rajesh Kumar met them at Jammu and provided them the weapons. They conducted the recce around the shop at Pir Mitha but could not enter the shop and they came back and returned the weapons to Rajesh Kumar. In the first week of September, they again came and took the weapons from Rajesh Kumar but could not execute the plan. On 14.09.2003, accused Rajesh Kumar again went to Katra and asked other accused persons to come again. In the first week of September, they again came and took the weapons from Rajesh Kumar but could not execute the plan. On 14.09.2003, accused Rajesh Kumar again went to Katra and asked other accused persons to come again. On 15.09.2003, Sher Singh, Ashok Singh, Rashpal Singh, Parbhat Singh, Uttam Singh and Balwan Singh came to Jammu to commit the murder and accused Rajesh Kumar again provided them weapons but this time also, they could not succeed. They returned the weapons to Rajesh Kumar and stayed at a Hotel at Jewel Chowk, Jammu. Next day, Rashpal Singh and Parbhat Singh took Rs. 200/- from Rajesh Kumar for the purpose of giving rent of Hotel. On 16.09.2003, Balwan Singh, Uttam Singh and Sonu went to Katra, whereas other accused Sher Singh, Parbhat Singh, Ashok Singh and Rashpal Singh met accused Rajesh Kumar at 6 p.m. Accused Rajesh Kumar again gave them weapons and also provided a gunny bag so as to put robbed articles in the gunny bag. All the four persons, in order to commit the murder of complainant, entered his shop and threatened him. Accused Parbhat Singh inflicted a blow of toka on complainant and one of the accused namely, Sher Singh was caught by deceased Raj Kumar alias Sonu and accused Sher Singh inflicted blow of Kirch on his chest. The other accused fled away but Sher Singh was caught. The register of Hotel Holiday dated 15-16/9/2003 was seized, where the accused stayed at night. 8. During the course of investigation, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused Parbhat Singh, one toka type knife was seized. On the disclosure statement of accused Rashpal Singh, one Kirch type sword was recovered and on disclosure statement made by accused Ashok Singh, one toka was recovered. During investigation, the clothes of deceased, sample of blood and sample of simple soil and blood stained soil were seized. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Jammu after getting them resealed from the Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer established the offences under sections 302/452/149/120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act against all the respondents. The charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and it was transferred to Sub Judge, Jammu on 15.11.2003 and subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jammu. The charge sheet was ultimately transferred to the trial court on 27.11.2003. The charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and it was transferred to Sub Judge, Jammu on 15.11.2003 and subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jammu. The charge sheet was ultimately transferred to the trial court on 27.11.2003. All the accused were charged for commission of offences under sections 302/452/323/149/120-B RPC, read with section 4/25 Arms Act. The prosecution had cited as many as 23 witnesses out of which the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The respondents also examined five witnesses in their defence. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, acquitted the respondents vide judgment impugned. 9. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that PW-1 Vipan Kumar Luthra, PW-2 Manish Chadda, PW-3 Ashwani Kumar, PW-4 Raj Kumar, PW-5 Ranjeet Singh and PW-6 Constable Mohd. Salim have been cited as eye witnesses and out of them, all the witnesses except PW-6 Mohd. Salim have turned hostile. In order to determine as to whether the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence or not, we deem it appropriate to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence. 10. PW-1 Vipan Kumar Luthra, who was complainant, stated that he knows the accused Rajesh Kumar only though he stated that three boys came to his shop, one boy entered the shop and two boys remained outside but expressed ignorance about the identity of those boys. He stated about the injuries suffered by him but did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile. During cross-examination by APP, no-incriminating material could be extracted from him against the respondents. He also stated that nothing was recovered in his presence. No seizure memo was prepared. Though he identified his signatures on the seizure memo, recovery memo, seizure memo of weapons of offence and disclosure statements but he stated that the contents are not correct. 11. PW-2 Manish Chadda (Auto Driver) also turned hostile. He was cross-examined by the APP but no incriminating material could be extracted from him against the respondents. He admitted his signatures on the seizure memo but denied the contents of the same. 12. PW-3 Ashwani Kumar also turned hostile. He was cross-examined at length by APP but nothing incriminating could be extracted from his statement though he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo except the seizure memo of blood stained soil, but he denied the contents of the same. 12. PW-3 Ashwani Kumar also turned hostile. He was cross-examined at length by APP but nothing incriminating could be extracted from his statement though he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo except the seizure memo of blood stained soil, but he denied the contents of the same. 13. PW-4 Raj Kumar simply stated that he does not know the other accused persons except Rajesh Kumar. He was declared hostile but despite cross-examination, nothing incriminating could be extracted by the APP from his testimony. 14. PW-5 Ranjeet Singh also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. After being declared hostile, he was cross-examined by the APP but no incriminating material could be extracted from his testimony also. 15. PW1, Mohd. Salim Constable stated that on 16.09.2003, he was posted at Police Station Peer Mitha. He was deputed at Auto Stand Peer Mitha and heard noise at 7.30 p.m. in front of the Pahalwan's Shop. People had gathered at the Jewellery Shop of Vipin Kumar. He also went there, where he saw accused Sher Singh, who had injured a boy by stabbing knife in his chest. The accused was caught by auto driver Manish Chadda. He reached there and arrested the accused Sher Singh. The accused was having a Kirch type knife, which was 5/6 inches long. He and Manish Chadha snatched the knife from the accused and in the meantime other police personnel also came there and took the accused to the Police Station. At Police Station, the accused disclosed his name as Sher Singh and further stated that four other persons were also with him. The Police recorded his statement. In cross-examination, he stated that he along with Mohd. Zahir, SPO and Vijay Kumar Constable proceeded for patrolling from Police Station. The distance from Auto Stand to the place of occurrence is about 100 metres. When he reached on spot, he saw Manish Chadda had caught hold the hand of accused Sher Singh. He also caught the accused's right hand, in which the accused was holding a knife. People including the owner of shop also accompanied the police to Police Station. The knife was recovered from the accused and was measured by the Investigating Officer at the Police Station. His statement was recorded after two days of the occurrence. The seized knife was simple in nature and he has not seen the same in the Court. 16. People including the owner of shop also accompanied the police to Police Station. The knife was recovered from the accused and was measured by the Investigating Officer at the Police Station. His statement was recorded after two days of the occurrence. The seized knife was simple in nature and he has not seen the same in the Court. 16. PW-7 Sham Lal proved the seizure memos of clothes, blood, receipt of the dead body. He also identified the shirt and under shirt in the Court. 17. PW-8 Raj Kumar proved the seizure memos of the dead body, pant and shirt. He also proved the seizure memo of blood. 18. PW-10 Mohd. Javed also turned hostile. In cross-examination, no incriminating material could be extracted from his testimony against the respondents. 19. Likewise, PW-11 Subash Singh, PW-9 Romesh Singh, PW-14 Rattan Singh, PW-15 Chamail Singh, PW-16 Uttam Singh also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. They were cross-examined by the APP but no incriminating material could be extracted from their testimonies against the respondents. 20. PW-12 Sami Ullah, Head Constable stated that on 10.10.2003, Sub Inspector Gandharab Singh was interrogating Rashpal Singh and during interrogation, he disclosed that he has hidden a Kirch in bushes near Peer Baba at Lower Mast Garh, which was given to him by accused Rajesh for assaulting. Disclosure memo was prepared and he signed as a witness. He identified his signatures on the same. Subsequently, the accused got the said weapon recovered. He proved the recovery memo also. Sub Inspector Gandharab Singh also enquired from accused Parbhat Singh on 10.11.2003, who disclosed that one Shura/Tokka which was given to him by accused Rajesh Kumar has been hidden by him in bushes at Pir Kho at the bank of Tawi and pursuant to this disclosure statement, the said weapon was recovered. During cross-examination, he stated 7/8 Constables were present when the Police was enquiring from the accused but he does not remember their names. No civilian was present at that time. They along with accused were five persons when they went on spot. Investigating Officer had not taken any civilian, although many civilians were present there. The accused had hidden the weapon of offence in the bushes in Mast Garh near the Peer Baba. People reside near the Peer Baba and there were residential houses on both the sides of Peer Baba. Investigating Officer had not taken any civilian, although many civilians were present there. The accused had hidden the weapon of offence in the bushes in Mast Garh near the Peer Baba. People reside near the Peer Baba and there were residential houses on both the sides of Peer Baba. When they reached on spot, people had gathered there. Investigating Officer did not call any civilian as witness in his presence. Thereafter, nothing was done. He cannot tell about the day and time. He does not know what was done by I. O. in the Police Station. When disclosure statement of accused Parbhat Singh was being made, no civilian was called in the Police Station. No disclosure statement was made in his presence. They took the accused Parbhat Singh to Peer Kho at 7.00 pm. Some people were working in their fields and the children were also playing. I.O. did not call any civilian for joining as witness. The accused got recovered the weapon of offence from the bushes. The bushes were on the left side of the river tawi. The team who went on spot with first accused was the same at the time of second accused. It took 10/15 minutes. They came back with I. O at police station and rest of the investigation was done in the police station, regarding which he has no knowledge. He signed one paper on the spot and one in the police station. He had put signatures on two papers only. 21. PW-13 Constable Deep Chand stated that he knows the accused persons. On 10.10.2003 at 8.O' clock, he along with Constable Sami Ullah was present when I.O. was enquiring from the accused Rashpal Singh, who disclosed that one Kirch that was given to him for attack by Rajesh Kumar had been concealed by him in the bushes near Peer Baba. The disclosure statement was prepared at Police Station and his signature was obtained. Thereafter, they went on spot and recovered one Kirch from the bushes at Peer Baba. Recovery memo was prepared on spot and his signatures were obtained. Thereafter, they came back to Police Station. On 10.11.2003, the Investigating Officer was enquiring from accused Parbhat Singh, who disclosed that he had concealed one Toka, given to him by accused Rajesh Kumar in the bushes at Peer Kho temple. Recovery memo was prepared on spot and his signatures were obtained. Thereafter, they came back to Police Station. On 10.11.2003, the Investigating Officer was enquiring from accused Parbhat Singh, who disclosed that he had concealed one Toka, given to him by accused Rajesh Kumar in the bushes at Peer Kho temple. Thereafter, the I.O. took the accused there and at that time, he, along with Constable Sami Ullah were present. Recovery memo was prepared on spot and his signature was obtained on the same. In cross-examination he stated that accused Rashpal Singh made disclosure memo in the room of I.O. and at that time no civilian was present except I.O., he and Constable Sami Ullah. After the disclosure statement, I.O. and Sami Ullah went on spot and no other person accompanied them. They reached on spot at 8.30 p.m and it was dark. They parked the vehicle in front of Pahalwan's shop and from there they marched on foot. No civil person was present there and I.O. had also not called any civilian. It took 10 minutes to reach on spot. He stated that he recovered the weapon of offence from the bushes and handed over the same to the I.O. They reached the Police Station after ten minutes. He has not seen the Kirch today. Accused Prahbat Singh made his disclosure statement in the room of I.O. and at that time he, I.O. and Constable Sami Ullah were present there. No civilian was present there. Accused Parbhat Singh made his disclosure statement in Dogri language. He cannot say who wrote the disclosure statement. It took 10 minutes to reach on spot and except he, I.O. and Sami Ullah, no other person was with them. On the way they saw many civilians walking and on spot nobody was present. I.O. did not call any civilian in his presence. The recovery was made from the bushes of Peer Kho. He recovered weapon from the bushes and handed over to I.O. He signed only two papers, which were written in Urdu. 22. PW-18 Subash Chander, Patwari is a formal witness, who proved the khasra girdawari and site map prepared by him. 23. PW-19 Gandharb Singh proved the resealing of seven packets. He issued a certificate, which is marked as EXPW-GS. 24. PW 20-Dr. Bashir Ahmed Zonal Medical Officer, SDH Gool proved the injuries suffered by Vipan Kumar. 22. PW-18 Subash Chander, Patwari is a formal witness, who proved the khasra girdawari and site map prepared by him. 23. PW-19 Gandharb Singh proved the resealing of seven packets. He issued a certificate, which is marked as EXPW-GS. 24. PW 20-Dr. Bashir Ahmed Zonal Medical Officer, SDH Gool proved the injuries suffered by Vipan Kumar. He proved the certificate (EXPW-B.A) issued by him when he was C.M.O., in GMC, Jammu. In cross-examination, he stated that the injuries were possible by fall. 25. PW-21-Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria, Asstt. Professor, GMC Jammu stated that he conducted the post-mortem on the body of Raj Kumar alias Sonu on 17th February. He proved the post-mortem report (EXPW-B.K). In cross-examination, he stated that the death has been caused due to profuse bleeding of the deceased. He further stated that he cannot state whether the weapon of offence was shown to him or not. He has not seen the weapon of offence in court. 26. PW-Gandharab Singh, Sub Inspector disclosed about details of the investigation conducted by him. After conclusion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet. He proved the offences under section 302/452/149/120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. In cross examination, he stated that whatever Vipan kumar had narrated in his report, the same was written and nothing else was written. The names and parentage of the accused were not told to him at the time of lodging of FIR. He recorded the statements of five witnesses on spot and statements of rest of the witnesses were recorded in the police station. At the time of recovery, 4/5 persons were with him. Recovery of weapons from three accused was made from three places. Except weapon of offence, nothing else has been shown to him in the Court today. All the recoveries were effected at the day time, however, one recovery was effected at night. There was light at night when the recovery of one of the weapons of offence was made. He did not conduct identification parade after arrest of the accused because they were known. 27. The respondents have also examined DW-Mohan Singh, DW- Kishore Singh, DW Chuni Lal, DW Bharat Kohli and DW Ami Chand in their defence. 28. DW- Chuni Lal simply stated that the respondents Sher Singh, Ashok Singh, Pharbat Singh and Rashpal Singh were working as Pithues. 27. The respondents have also examined DW-Mohan Singh, DW- Kishore Singh, DW Chuni Lal, DW Bharat Kohli and DW Ami Chand in their defence. 28. DW- Chuni Lal simply stated that the respondents Sher Singh, Ashok Singh, Pharbat Singh and Rashpal Singh were working as Pithues. DW Bharat Kohli stated that on 15.09.2003, he and Rajesh Kumar had gone to Amritsar because his uncle had died and came back on 19.09.2003. When they came back, police arrested Rajesh on next day. DW-Ami Chand stated that accused Sher Singh and Parbhat are residents of his village and they work as Peethu. The testimonies of the defence witnesses may not be relevant for considering the contentions raised by the appellant. 29. As already observed by us that there is only one projected eyewitness to the occurrence i.e. PW-Mohd. Salim Constable. Except this witness, all other projected eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution and even the complainant, who was injured, has turned hostile and refused to identify the respondents. So far as PW Mohd. Salim is concerned, he himself has not seen the accused inflicting injuries to the deceased Raj Kumar as he simply stated that when he reached on spot, he saw Manish Chadda holding the accused and accused was having Kirch type knife in his hand and further that he and Manish Chadda snatched the Kirch from the accused. From his testimony, it is not forthcoming that he had seen the accused Sher Singh inflicting injuries upon the deceased Raj Kumar. In fact, this witness is not an eye witness to the occurrence as he went on spot only after hearing the noise when number of persons had already gathered there. No doubt conviction can be recorded on the statement of the solitary eye witness but for doing so his statement must be trustworthy. But in the instant case, PW-Mohd. Salim has no where stated that he had seen the accused Sher Singh inflicting injuries upon the deceased Raj Kumar. There is no direct evidence that accused Sher Singh inflicted injuries upon the deceased. The learned trial court in fact has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no corroborating evidence with regard to the version given by the PW Mohd. Salim as all the other eye witnesses have turned hostile. There is no direct evidence that accused Sher Singh inflicted injuries upon the deceased. The learned trial court in fact has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no corroborating evidence with regard to the version given by the PW Mohd. Salim as all the other eye witnesses have turned hostile. Not only the complainant, who suffered injuries but also PW Manish Chadda whose reference has been made by PW Mohd. Salim in his statement, has turned hostile. In view of this, it would not be safe to place reliance on the statement of PW Mohd. Salim for convicting the accused. 30. So far as disclosure statements made by Rashpal Singh and Parbhat Singh and subsequent recovery of weapons of offence are concerned, there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-13 Deep Chand and PW-12 Sami Ullah. PW-12 Sami Ullah has stated that when police was enquiring from the accused, 7/8 Constables were present there, whereas PW Deep Chand has categorically stated that when disclosure statement was made by accused Rashpal Singh, except I.O, he and Constable Sami Ullah were present there. So far as disclosure statement made by Parbhat Singh is concerned, he has stated that no disclosure statement was made in his presence. As per both these witnesses, recovery of the weapons was effected at around 7.00-8.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer, Gandharb Singh has stated that all the recoveries were effected at day time except one recovery. In view of these conflicting statements, even the disclosure statements and consequent recoveries also, cannot be relied upon so far as accused Rashpal Singh and Parbhat Singh are concerned. 31. We have examined the judgment passed by learned trial court. The learned trial court has considered the evidence in its right perspective and it cannot be said that the learned trial court has ignored any vital piece of evidence. In an appeal against acquittal, only requirement is whether on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties, the opinion formed by the trial court is possible/plausible one and if it is so, then no interference is warranted. We do not find any perversity in the judgment impugned and rather the opinion formed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence on record. 32. We do not find any perversity in the judgment impugned and rather the opinion formed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence on record. 32. In view of what has been said and discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal dated 01.07.2010 recorded by the trial court. The appeal is, as such, dismissed. Bail bonds and personal bond of the accused are discharged. 33. Record of the trial court be sent back.