JUDGMENT : (Munnuri Laxman, J.) : 1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on the file of Session Case No.51/1993, wherein and whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 302/34, 326/34, 325/34, 325, 323 & 201 of IPC. 2) Against the said acquittal, the present appeal is at the instance of the State. 3) Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.1993 at about 3:30 p.m., Gurudev Singh, uncle of the deceased-Major Singh lodged a report at Police Station Anupgarh stating that on 17.04.1993, Major Singh and two brothers Binder Singh and Balveer Singh went to the field for harvesting crop. While he was returning, he found that Major Singh was at the liquor shop situated at Chak 137 RD Head. Binder Singh and Balveer Singh also saw that the deceased-Major Singh was consuming the liquor at liquor shop at about 7:30 pm and they insisted Major Singh to come along with them. However, he could not accompany them and did not turn out the entire night to the house. When the complainant went to Chak 137 RD Head next day morning at about 6:30 p.m., he met with Mangla Ram and Goma Ram. They informed the complainant that they had seen the deceased Major Singh. He was being forcibly dragged by Mandar Singh and after that, Mandar Singh’s mother had heard crying ‘maar diya, maar diya”. The complainant went to the house of the relatives of the accused and verified presence of Major Singh but he could not find Major Singh. On suspicion, when they went to get information from accused-Mandar Singh, the door of the house of accused was blocked and all the accused were absconded. Thus, suspicion was entertained on Mandar Singh. 4) On the basis of the said report, the police registered the FIR No.113/1993 (Exhibit-P/2) at Police Station Anupgarh for offence under Section 364 of IPC. While the investigation was in progress, the brother of the deceased came to the Police Station and informed that the dead body of Major Singh was found in the canal. On such information, the Investigating Officer went to the place of dead body and after conducting site inspection, panchnama and inquest on the dead body, shifted the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. On such information, the Investigating Officer went to the place of dead body and after conducting site inspection, panchnama and inquest on the dead body, shifted the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. After postmortem examination was conducted, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused-persons and on interrogation, they made disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and basing on such confessions, slippers of the deceased, which were hidden in the nearby fields, were recovered under Exhibit- P/9. The recovery of lathi (stick) was also made under Exhibit-P/13. 5) After concluding the investigation, the police filed chargesheet. The final investigation reveals that the accused and the deceased had consumed alcohol and a quarrel took place in between them and the accused allegedly killed the deceased by strangulating and thrown the dead body into the canal by inflicting multiple injuries on his person with stick. 6) On appearance of the accused-appellants before the trial court, charges for offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 325, 323 and 201 of IPC were framed against the accused. The prosecution in support of its case has examined in all 16 witnesses and relied upon documents under Exhibit-P/1 to P/34. The accused have produced the documents under Exhibit-D/ 1 to D/4 in defence evidence. 7) The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on record found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt basing on the circumstantial evidence and accordingly, acquitted both the accused of the offences charged. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 8) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State has contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the various circumstances upon which the prosecution relied upon, more particularly the last seen theory and the recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that all the circumstances, upon which the prosecution relied upon, have clinchingly established that the accused were authors of the crime. They killed the deceased by strangulating and thrown the dead body in the canal. Therefore, he prayed to reverse the finding of acquittal and urged for conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences charged. They killed the deceased by strangulating and thrown the dead body in the canal. Therefore, he prayed to reverse the finding of acquittal and urged for conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences charged. 9) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused submitted that all the witnesses to the last seen theory have not supported the prosecution version. PW-5 Bhadar Ram is the only person who states that the accused-persons were forcibly taking the deceased; one accused was holding legs and other was holding hands and it was a dark night. He had not seen the faces of culprits but he claimed that he recognized them with voice. According to learned counsel for the respondents, this witness was a planted witness and the same is clear from his own evidence, which shows that it was a dark night and he had perceived the accused only by hearing their voices. His statement is also not supported by any other witnesses. 10) The learned counsel also contended that PW-4 Roopa Ram and PW-13 Prithvi Raj are the only witnesses who have seen the deceased and Mandar Singh consuming alcohol at the liquor shop. The evidence of PW-4, who was the owner of the liquor shop, clearly indicates that the deceased and Mandar Singh had never visited together to his shop. They independently came to the shop. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it was the common place for consumption of alcohol by every customer of the liquor shop. The evidence of PW-13 clearly shows that he had left the shop prior to the deceased and accused-Mandar Singh left from liquor shop. It means this witness is only witness to the consumption of alcohol by the deceased and the accused-Mandar Singh; and it was common platform for every customer to drink at the said place. Therefore, their evidence has no help to the prosecution to prove that the deceased and the accused went together while leaving the liquor shop. 11) The learned counsel for the respondent-accused also contended that the other circumstantial evidence is that the accused-persons along with their mother were seen near the place of offence. Therefore, their evidence has no help to the prosecution to prove that the deceased and the accused went together while leaving the liquor shop. 11) The learned counsel for the respondent-accused also contended that the other circumstantial evidence is that the accused-persons along with their mother were seen near the place of offence. The evidence of PW-3 Goma Ram indicates that when he along with Mangalaram went to see the cries of Mandar Singh at the request of mother of the accused, after having the tea, they had only seen the mother and her two sons proceeding towards their home. Mandar Singh and other accused were holding sticks and Mandar Singh had injuries on his body. These evidence do not indicate that they saw the deceased with the accused. Their evidence is only to show that the accused were seen going to the house and there were injuries on the body of Mandar Singh. These injuries could have been possible when Mandar Singh in an inebriated condition fell on the ground and such an injury has no relevance to connect the accused for the exhibition of offence against the deceased. 12) The last contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that alleged slippers of the deceased were claimed to have been recovered basing on the disclosure statement of the accused. However, the slippers were not identified to that of the deceased. The recovery of such slippers is not incriminating material connecting the accused with the alleged crime. Therefore, such an evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. So far as other recoveries made in pursuance of disclosure statement of the accused is not incriminating evidence as there is no FSL report in this regard. Therefore, such recoveries have no bearing on the accused involvement for the offences charged. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the respondents. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13) We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents-accused and carefully perused the record of the case. 14) A close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that the prosecution relied upon three circumstances. The first circumstance is that the accused and the deceased were seen together at the liquor shop. To support the first circumstance, the prosecution examined PW-4 Roopa Ram and PW-13 Prithvi Raj. 14) A close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that the prosecution relied upon three circumstances. The first circumstance is that the accused and the deceased were seen together at the liquor shop. To support the first circumstance, the prosecution examined PW-4 Roopa Ram and PW-13 Prithvi Raj. A close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4 show that he was the owner of the liquor shop. He stated in his statement that the deceased and the accused were the regular customers to the liquor shop apart from other persons and he also admitted in his cross-examination that they used to come to liquor shop independently and on the day of incident also as usual they came and consumed liquor and went away. Similar is the evidence of PW-13, whose evidence shows that he was also in the company of Vijay who was taking liquor on the said shop. The evidence of this witness also shows that when he along with Vijay left the liquor shop, the deceased and Mandar Singh were still consuming the liquor. The place where they were last seen together is the liquor shop where Mandar Singh and the deceased were regular customers. They were in habit of independently reaching to that place to consume the liquor. This evidence would not help the prosecution to link the accused to the last seen theory. 15) The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that PW-3 Goma Ram and PW-6 Mangla Ram allegedly seen both the accused lifting away the deceased. A close scrutiny of evidence of PWs 3 & 6 show that PW-3 was a watchman watching the Indira Gandhi Canal. Both these witnesses said that mother of Mandar Singh had heard the voice of Mandar Singh crying for help. On hearing such a cry, she allegedly made call to them to visit the place where from she heard voices of Mandar Singh and asked them to bring Mandar Singh to the house. Their evidence shows that after having tea, they went to see Mandar Singh and they found that both the accused and their mother were going to their home. Mandar Singh was holding stick and he was inebriated and sustained injuries. There evidence also shows that they could not see the face of Mandar Singh or any other accused except identifying Mandar Singh by his voice. Mandar Singh was holding stick and he was inebriated and sustained injuries. There evidence also shows that they could not see the face of Mandar Singh or any other accused except identifying Mandar Singh by his voice. Their evidence is also not helpful to prove the last seen theory. The other evidence is of PW-5 Bhadar Ram, which specifically indicates that he noticed both the accused dragging the deceased Major Singh. One of the accused was holding legs and another was holding the hands of the deceased. They both took the deceased to the canal side and later, he went back to his house. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the place where he had seen the incident is Chak 8 A, which is 2-3 km away from Chak 137 Head. His cross-examination also shows that he watched the entire scene by hiding himself at that place and he could not see Mandar Singh as it was a dark night but according to him, he could identify Mandar Singh with his voice. If the evidence of this witness is closely scrutinized, he claimed to be direct witness of the incident but if he had seen the incident, he could not keep quite till the police examined him. It is not known how the police identified this witness as an eyewitness to the incident. This witness was cited subsequently. In the initial report, there was no reference of this witness witnessing the incident. It appears that this witness was a planted witness and his evidence appears to be unnatural seeing the silent conduct of this witness having seen the execution of offence. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is also not much helpful to the prosecution. 16) As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the slippers of the deceased were recovered basing on disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is not proved by the prosecution that slippers, which were recovered, belong to the deceased. No witness has identified such slippers. Therefore, recovery of such slippers does not help to the prosecution. Apart from the above recovery, there was also recovery of stick, which also found having no incriminating evidence. Such stick is commonly available in farming society. However, it is not proved by the prosecution that slippers, which were recovered, belong to the deceased. No witness has identified such slippers. Therefore, recovery of such slippers does not help to the prosecution. Apart from the above recovery, there was also recovery of stick, which also found having no incriminating evidence. Such stick is commonly available in farming society. Such a recovery of stick, without there being any material incriminating, does not help to the prosecution to point out the involvement of the accused for the offence charged. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents of the offences charged. 17) In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.