JUDGMENT : (Brij Raj Singh, J.) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the common judgement and order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2007, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment and further in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.478 of 2007, under Section 25/4 Arms Act, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Raj Mohammad lodged a report mentioning therein that his maternal uncle, Mohd. Raees Ahmad S/o Rafeeq Ahmad used to live in his house and he was going to attend the Namaz on 26. 07.2007 at 5.30 AM. The accused-appellant, Mahmood Ali assaulted his maternal uncle by knife in front of Power-loom factory. His maternal uncle made alarm and fell down. The accused-appellant ran away from the place by hurling knife. It is alleged that accused-appellant had brought a lady, namely, Parveen who had gone to some other place after living with him for 5-6 months. The accused-appellant had developed enmity with Mohd. Raees Ahmad believing that Mohd. Raees Ahmad helped Parveen, who left the house of the accused-appellant. The complainant, Mohd. Alam S/o Bundhu and other neighbours had seen the accused-appellant assaulting his maternal uncle. The complainant had taken his maternal uncle to the Government Hospital, but he died before reaching the hospital. 3. On the basis of written Tehrir FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.444 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC and after recovery of the knife, second FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.478 of 2007 under Section 25/4 Arms Act. Inquest was conducted and thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The cases were investigated by the Investigating Officer, who after completion of enquiry, filed two separate charge sheets; one under Sections 302 IPC and the other under Section 25/4 Arms Act against the accused-appellant. The cases were committed to the court of sessions. Both the cases were tried together. The cases were investigated by the Investigating Officer, who after completion of enquiry, filed two separate charge sheets; one under Sections 302 IPC and the other under Section 25/4 Arms Act against the accused-appellant. The cases were committed to the court of sessions. Both the cases were tried together. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25/4 Arms Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and pleaded for trial. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, produced the following eight witnesses:- P.W.-1 Raj Mohammad P.W.-2 S.I. Sayeed Ahmad P.W.-3 Nayeem P.W.-4 Inayat Ali P.W.-5 S.I. Reshampal Singh P.W.-6 Rajmani Rakesh P.W.-7 Sanjay Tyagi P.W.-8 Dr. Ramendra Singh 5. 19 exhibits were also produced by the prosecution to prove its case. 6. The accused-appellant was confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he deposed before the court that he was falsely implicated In the case. He also produced D.W.-1, Smt. Parveen to support his case. 7. The trial court after examining the witnesses and adducing the evidence on record, convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 8. P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad was examined before the trial court and he deposed the same facts in his examination-in-chief as has been narrated in the FIR. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the FIR was not written by him and he only made signature. He had not seen the incident because he was not present at the place of occurrence. He lodged the report at the behest of the neighbours. He reached to the place of occurrence after half an hour of the incident and he took his maternal uncle to the hospital. 9. P.W.-2, Sayeed Ahmad was examined before the court and he deposed that he was posted as Sub-Inspector on 26. 07.2007 in the police station. He took the custody of the dead body of Mohd. Raees Ahmad and conducted the inquest report at 8.45 AM. He further deposed that Chik FIR was signed by Constable Sonveer Singh, who was posted along with him and he had written the report. 10. P.W.-3, Nayeem S/o Nizamuddin was examined by the trial court and he deposed that blood stained, concrete was collected by the Investigating Officer before him and the collected items were kept in two sealed boxes. He further deposed that Chik FIR was signed by Constable Sonveer Singh, who was posted along with him and he had written the report. 10. P.W.-3, Nayeem S/o Nizamuddin was examined by the trial court and he deposed that blood stained, concrete was collected by the Investigating Officer before him and the collected items were kept in two sealed boxes. In cross-examination, he deposed that on 26.07.2007, he was working at his place and he did not sign on the inquest and he did not give any statement. 11. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali S/o Bunaid was examined before the trial court and deposed that he had come to Hapur and stayed at Bashir Ki Sarai. On the next day, he woke up in the morning and went for Namaz and as soon as he reached to the house of Mohd. Raees Ahmad, he saw that accused-appellant was stabbing Mohd. Raees Ahmad. He wanted to catch him, but he ran away from the place of occurrence. He further deposed that Karamat Ali was also present along with him. He further deposed that he and Karamat Ali found accused-appellant on 03.08.2007 near Chungi at Meerut. Two police men were standing there and he told them that accused-appellant committed murder of his brother and he was identified by them before the police. Accused-appellant confessed before the police that he had killed Mohd. Raees Ahmad with knife. He also confessed that knife was thrown by him at Power-loom factory. The accused-appellant was taken to the place, where the knife was thrown. He took out the knife and confessed that the same knife was used for assaulting the deceased. The recovery memo was prepared and the knife was kept in a sealed cover. 12. In cross-examination, P.W.-4 Inayat Ali deposed that he and Karamat Ali have got their houses side by side. He deposed that he had come to Hapur in the evening and went to the house of his brother Raees Bhai. Mohd. Raees Ahmad used to live alone in a rented house. He further deposed that Bhashir met him. He woke up at 5.30 AM and without taking bath, he had gone to attend the Namaz. Karamat Ali was also sleeping beside him. The Mosque is situated half kilometre from place of Sarai. After Namaz, he came back and thereafter went to the house of his brother Mohd. Raees Ahmad. He further deposed that Bhashir met him. He woke up at 5.30 AM and without taking bath, he had gone to attend the Namaz. Karamat Ali was also sleeping beside him. The Mosque is situated half kilometre from place of Sarai. After Namaz, he came back and thereafter went to the house of his brother Mohd. Raees Ahmad. The house of his brother was situated 1 Km. away from the Mosque. He took 5-6 minutes time to reach to the house of his brother from the Mosque and as soon as he reached to the house of his brother, he saw that accused-appellant was stabbing his brother with knife and at that time, the landlord and residents of the locality came to the place of occurrence. He further deposed that the place of occurrence is just 10-15 meters away from the house of Mohd. Raees Ahmad. He also deposed that accused-appellant stabbed three times to the deceased. He deposed in the cross-examination that he had no idea that Karamat Ali was unconscious. He and Karamat Ali went to the police station at 11 AM. The report was lodged by him. He deposed that knife was recovered in his presence and the residents of the locality were also present. After incident, police did not record the statement and his statement was recorded on 03.08.2007. 13. P.W.-5, Sub-Inspector Resham Singh was examined before the trial court and he deposed that he investigated the case and during investigation, he recorded the statement of the FIR Scriber, Constable Shabi Akhtar Zaidi, Rajmani Rakesh, Station House Officer along with the statement of the accused-appellant. He proved the documents and also deposed that it was not correct to say that knife was not recovered. 14. P.W.-6 Rajmani Rakesh, Station House Officer, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad was also examined by the trial court and he deposed that Case Crime No.444 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC was registered in his presence. He recorded the statement of witnesses Karamat Ali and Inayat Ali on 04.08.2007. He also conducted the inquest and sent the recovered articles to forensic lab to get report. He also identified Ext.Kha-19 pertaining to the recovery items, which were sent for the forensic report. He also deposed that forensic report pertaining to knife was not known to him. 15. He recorded the statement of witnesses Karamat Ali and Inayat Ali on 04.08.2007. He also conducted the inquest and sent the recovered articles to forensic lab to get report. He also identified Ext.Kha-19 pertaining to the recovery items, which were sent for the forensic report. He also deposed that forensic report pertaining to knife was not known to him. 15. P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi S/o Raj Veer Singh was examined by the trial court and he deposed that on 26.07.2007, he had gone to Hapur to his relatives house and he went to meet the deceased Mohd. Raees Ahmad at 5.30 AM and as soon as he reached to the place of Power-loom factory, he saw that one short height person was stabbing Mohd. Raees Ahmad. Later on, he came to know the name of the accused-appellant. After hearing alarm, Karamat Ali, Inayat Ali and many people reached to the place of occurrence and the accused-appellant ran away by hurling the knife. The deceased was taken to the hospital in injured state, however, he died before reaching to the hospital. 16. In cross-examination, P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi deposed that before he could reach to the place of occurrence, all the persons present at the place of occurrence took Mohd. Raees Ahmad to the hospital. He did not go to the hospital along with people who had carried the deceased. He went back to Kotwali City from the place of occurrence. 17. P.W.-8 Dr. Rajendra Singh was examined by the trial court and he deposed that he conducted the proceedings of the post-mortem of the deceased. The body was brought by Constables Jaiveer Singh and Sanjay Singh. He conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, which indicates three following injuries on his body:- “1. Incised wound 11 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep on left side of forehead, 5 cm from left eyebrow, left ear cut 2. Incised wound 7 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep right side front of chest chest just adjacent to right nipple 3. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left thigh. 10 cm .. left knee joint.” 18. P.W.-8 Dr. Rajendra Singh deposed before the court that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He also deposed that the injuries could have been caused by knife. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left thigh. 10 cm .. left knee joint.” 18. P.W.-8 Dr. Rajendra Singh deposed before the court that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He also deposed that the injuries could have been caused by knife. He also opined that the deceased could have died due to the injuries caused at 5.30 AM. 19. Sri Krishna Kumar, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused-appellant has made the following submissions:- 20. Learned amicus curiae has submitted that after looking to the FIR, it is evident that the FIR was lodged on 26.07.2007 by Head Constable Sohan Veer Singh, but he was not examined, rather P.W.-2 S.I. Saheed Ahmad was examined, who stated that Sohan Veer Singh was posted along with him and he identified his signature. It is submitted that P.W.-2 Saheed Ahmad cannot identify the signature of Sohan Veer Singh. 21. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that Case Crime No.478 of 2007, under Section 25/4 Arms Act, Police Statin Hapur Nagar, District Ghaziabad (Ext Ka-11) was lodged by Shabi Akhtar Zaidi, who is the FIR scriber, but he did not come in the witness box as a prosecution witness to prove the aforesaid FIR. No one on behalf of the police proved the FIR lodged by Shabi Akhtar Zaidi. He has also submitted that FIR is suspicious because unless the same is proved, it is not a peace of evidence. 22. Recovery Memo pertaining to blood stained soil dated 26. 07.2007 (Ext.Ka-9) was also not proved as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 29.09.2007 (Ext.Ka-18). It is evident that the blood stains were found disintegrated, therefore, the origin of blood stains could not be determined. It is also not ascertained as to whether the blood stains was pertaining to human being or animal. In Recovery Memo, two witnesses are mentioned, namely, Naeem S/o Nizamuddin and Maulana Anwar S/o Maulana Akhtar. In cross-examination, Naeem denied the version of the examination-in-Chief stating that on 26.06.2007, he was on his duty and did not sign the inquest report. 23. In Recovery Memo dated 03.08.2007 (Ext.Ka-10), Inayat Ali S/o Buniyad Ali and Karamat Ali S/o Murad Ali are mentioned as witnesses, who are cousin brothers of the deceased, Mohd. Raees Ahmad. In cross-examination, Naeem denied the version of the examination-in-Chief stating that on 26.06.2007, he was on his duty and did not sign the inquest report. 23. In Recovery Memo dated 03.08.2007 (Ext.Ka-10), Inayat Ali S/o Buniyad Ali and Karamat Ali S/o Murad Ali are mentioned as witnesses, who are cousin brothers of the deceased, Mohd. Raees Ahmad. As per law, both the witnesses of recovery memo should be independent witnesses, but in the present case both the witnesses are not independent witnesses and they are relatives of the deceased. 24. The discovered knife as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not proved. In the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 29.07.2007 (Ext.Ka-18), it is mentioned that seal of the bundle with knife was not matched with the specimen, due to which the bundle containing knife was returned to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad without test. It is thus clear that the weapon used, i.e. knife was not proved by the Forensic Science Laboratory. P.W.-6, Rajmani Rakesh, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination on being asked that what report was obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, he deposed that he had no knowledge about it. It is thus clear that the knife as alleged to be used in the crime, was not tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory for the reason that it was not matching with the recovery item. 25. The site plan shows that the accused-appellant was standing with knife and committed murder of the deceased Mohd. Raees Ahmad in front of Bright Rajshahi Public School. It means as per the site plan, the place of occurrence of the incident was Bright Rajshahi Public School, but as per the FIR version, the place of occurrence of the incident was in front of Power-loom factory. The site plan indicates that the accused-appellant was seen by witness stabbing the deceased by knife. P.W.-6 Rajmani Rakesh, Investigating Officer, did not mention the house of the accused-appellant in the site plan. Thus, the site plan was not proved by P.W.-6. 26. P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad has not supported the prosecution case, but he was neither cross-examined by the prosecution nor was declared hostile. It has been submitted that as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Masood and another Vs. Thus, the site plan was not proved by P.W.-6. 26. P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad has not supported the prosecution case, but he was neither cross-examined by the prosecution nor was declared hostile. It has been submitted that as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Masood and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 3 SCC 538 , the statement given by P.W.-1 is not binding and cannot be relied upon. 27. It has been submitted by the learned amicus curiae that P.W.4, Inayat Ali and P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi are chance witnesses. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali is brother of the deceased and P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi is resident of near village of the deceased, but surprisingly their names were not mentioned in the FIR as witnesses. The FIR was also not lodged by any of them, rather it was lodged by P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali in his cross-examination gave contradictory statement and deposed that when he reached to the house of the accused-appellant, he saw that accused-appellant was stabbing the deceased with knife, meaning thereby the place of occurrence was the house of the accused-appellant, but as per the FIR version, the place of occurrence of the incident was Power-loom factory. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali further gave statement that the deceased was living alone in a rented house for the last six years, but as per the FIR version, he was living in the house of P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali in his cross-examination stated that Karamat Ali and other persons of the locality reached to the police Station at 11 AM and thereafter the report was lodged. This statement was also contradictory to the version of the FIR because the FIR was lodged by P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad at 7.45 AM. 28. P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi is a chance witness. He has admitted that he was having good relations with the deceased, Mohd. Raees Ahmad, who was resident of his near village. He had given contradictory statement in his cross-examination. It is settled law that if the chance witnesses are relatives or friends and they are giving contradictory statements, their statements cannot be reliable and credible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253 . 29. It is settled law that if the chance witnesses are relatives or friends and they are giving contradictory statements, their statements cannot be reliable and credible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253 . 29. D.W.-1, Parveen, wife of the accused-appellant, was also examined before the court and she deposed that she had not left her husband’s house, rather she was living with him. Thus, the motive assigned in the present case is also demolished. (xi) In support of his contention, learned amicus curiae for the accused-appellant has placed reliance on the following judgements:- Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 6 SCC 553; Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab (2004) 11 SCC 253 ; and Javed Masood and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 3 SCC 538 30. Sri Gyan Narayan Kanaujiya, learned AGA-I, learned AGA while rebutting the arguments of learned amicus curiae for the appellant has submitted that P.Ws.4 and 7, who are the fact witnesses, have proved their case along with formal witnesses, who were examined by the trial court. He has further submitted that knife and the blood stained concrete have been examined by the trial court and the trial court has recorded a finding that the aforesaid exhibits indicate that the deceased was done to death by the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant had assaulted the deceased by using knife in presence of P.Ws.4 and 7. Once the ocular witnesses have deposed that the deceased was assaulted by the accused-appellant by knife in their presence, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. He has also submitted that motive is established in this case as the accused-appellant believed that deceased Mohd. Raees Ahmad helped Parveen, wife of the accused-appellant, who left the house of the accused-appellant. It is submitted that due to the aforesaid motive, the accused-appellant had enmity with the deceased and he committed the murder to fulfil his motive. It is also submitted that the injuries were caused by knife, which is admitted by the doctor. There is no doubt in the manner of assault because the injuries are corresponding with the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses before the trial court. It is also submitted that the injuries were caused by knife, which is admitted by the doctor. There is no doubt in the manner of assault because the injuries are corresponding with the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses before the trial court. It is further submitted that since the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 31. In support of his contention, learned AGA has placed reliance on the following judgement:- State through the Inspector of Police Vs. Laly @ Manikandan and another etc., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 851: AIR 2022 SC 5034 32. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the submissions made by them and perused the record. 33. The record reveals that P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad has not supported the prosecution case in the cross-examination, he deposed before the court that the report was not written by him, rather he made signature on it. He did not seen the incident and he was not present at the place of occurrence. He lodged the report at the behest of the neighbours and did not give statement to the police. He further deposed that he reached to the place of occurrence after half an hour and his maternal uncle was taken to the hospital. After looking to the statement of the P.W.-1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Masood (supra), it is evident that P.W.-1 has not supported the prosecution case. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid case are extracted herein below:- “13. In the present case the prosecution never declared PWs 6,18, 29 and 30 "hostile". Their evidence did not support the prosecution. Instead, it supported the defence. There is nothing in law that precludes the defence to rely on their evidence. This court in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 5 SCC 258 observed: "30. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272. In that case, the evidence of the Doctor who was examined as a prosecution witness showed that the deceased was being told by one K that she should implicate the accused or else she might have to face prosecution. The Doctor was not declared "hostile". The High Court, however, convicted the accused. In that case, the evidence of the Doctor who was examined as a prosecution witness showed that the deceased was being told by one K that she should implicate the accused or else she might have to face prosecution. The Doctor was not declared "hostile". The High Court, however, convicted the accused. This Court held that it was open to the defence to rely on the evidence of the Doctor and it was binding on the prosecution. 31. In the present case, evidence of PW1 Ved Prakash Goel destroyed the genesis of the prosecution that he had given his Maruti car to police in which police had gone to Bahai Temple and apprehended the accused. When Goel did not support that case, accused can rely on that evidence." 34. The recovery of blood stains dated 26.07.2007 (Ext. Ka-9) was also not proved before the trial court. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 29.09.2007 (Ext. Ka-18), the blood stains were disintegrated; thus, the origin of blood stains could not be determined whether it was pertaining to human being or animal. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali stated before the court that he was not present at the time of the inquest of the blood stains and he was doing his duty in office. Thus, it is clear that recovery of blood stains was also not proved by the prosecution. 35. After going through the record, we find that the knife was recovered on 03.08.2007 (Ext. Ka-10) and there are two witnesses of the inquest i.e. Inayat Ali and Karamat Ali, who are cousin brothers of the deceased, Mohd. Raees Ahmad and they are not the independent witnesses. The discovered knife was not proved as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 29.09.2007 (Ext. Ka-18) indicates that seal of the bundle with knife was not matching with the specimen seal, therefore, the Forensic Science Laboratory had returned back the bundle of knife to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad without examination. It is thus clear that the knife as alleged to be used in the crime, has not been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that seal of the recovered knife was not matching with the specimen. 36. We further find that as per the site plan (Ext. It is thus clear that the knife as alleged to be used in the crime, has not been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that seal of the recovered knife was not matching with the specimen. 36. We further find that as per the site plan (Ext. Ka-15), accused-appellant was standing with knife and committed murder of the deceased in front of Bright Rajshahi Public School. It means that as per the site plan, the place of occurrence of the incident was in front of the Bright Rajshahi Public School, but as per the FIR version, the place of occurrence of the incident was in front of the Power-loom factory. P.W.-6, Rajmani Rakesh, Investigating Officer, did not mention the house of the accused-appellant in the site plan. Thus, the site plan is also not proved by P.W.-6. 37. After examination, we further find that P.W.4, Inayagt Ali and P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi are the chance witness. P.W.-4, Inayat Ali is the brother of the deceased, Mohd. Raees Ahmad and he has given contradictory statements. He deposed before the court that when he reached to the house of the accused-appellant, he was stabbing his brother Raees Ahmad by knife. After looking to his statement, it is evident that the place of occurrence of the incident was the house of the accused-appellant, but as per the FIR version, place of occurrence of the incident was the Power-loom factory. He made statement in his cross-examination on 24.03.2009 that the deceased was living alone in a rented room for the last six years, but as per the FIR version, he was living in the house of P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad. He further stated in his cross-examination that he and other persons of the locality reached to the police station at 11 AM and thereafter FIR was lodged by him. This is another contradictory statement because the FIR was lodged at 7.45 AM by P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad. It is surprising to note that the incident took place on 26.07.2007 and P.W.-4, Inayat Ali, brother of the deceased and claims to be the witness, did not lodge the FIR. His name was also not mentioned in the FIR as witness; thus his presence is highly doubtful. 38. P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi, who is chance witness and the resident of the near village of the deceased, has given contradictory statements before the court. His name was also not mentioned in the FIR as witness; thus his presence is highly doubtful. 38. P.W.-7, Sanjay Tyagi, who is chance witness and the resident of the near village of the deceased, has given contradictory statements before the court. He is friend of the deceased and belongs to nearby village, which is admitted in cross-examination. He did not identify the accused-appellant and deposed that a short height person was stabbing the deceased. Therefore, statements of P.Ws.4 and 7 appear to be incredible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh @ Bhola (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid case are extracted herein below:- “6. P.Ws. 3 and 4, apart from being close relatives of the deceased, happen to be the chance witnesses. It looks as though the assailants were all the while waiting for P.Ws. 3 and 4 to reach the spot and witness the incident. Of course, for the mere reason that they are chance witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded if we find assurance from the prosecution evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. We, however, feel that their evidence should have been more carefully analysed and evaluated, which the High Court failed to do. 7. Right from the origin of the prosecution story, we find a number of irreconcilable versions and contradictions on certain material aspects which throw any amount of doubt on the veracity of the evidence tendered by P.Ws. 3 and 4. According to the version of the mother of the deceased (P.W.6), the accused persons took the deceased with them at about 5 p.m. This fact was brought to the notice of her husband when he returned home at about 7 p.m. This is what P.W.3 also says. P.W.3 stated that he left for Jorahan Village at about 7.30 p.m. to find his son. He met P.W.4 (Ranjit Singh) there and both of them searched, but could not find his son. They returned to Ranguwal after 9 p.m. While on the way, they saw the incident near the Primary School. But we have the evidence of P.W.5 (Granthi of the Gurudwara of Village Jorahan) according to whom, he at the instance of P.W.3 made the announcement over the loud-speaker before sunset about the missing person Gurpreet Singh. P.W.4 also states that P.W.3 met him before sunset. But we have the evidence of P.W.5 (Granthi of the Gurudwara of Village Jorahan) according to whom, he at the instance of P.W.3 made the announcement over the loud-speaker before sunset about the missing person Gurpreet Singh. P.W.4 also states that P.W.3 met him before sunset. As it was the peak winter month of January, the sunset should have been at about 5.30 p.m. This version of P.Ws. 5 and 4 does not, therefore, fit into the version of P.Ws. 3 and 6 that they became apprehensive of the safety of the deceased at about 7 p.m. and thereafter P.W.3 left the house at 7.30 p.m. in search of his missing son. ………………... 14. The foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that the Trial Court and the High Court did not consider certain material aspects apparent from the evidence and there was almost a mechanical acceptance of the evidence of the two chance witnesses whose evidence should have been evaluated with greater care and caution. As pointed out by this Court in Satbir Vs. Surat Singh & Anr. [ 1997 (4) SCC 192 ], a "cautious and close scrutiny" of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court. In these circumstances, this Court need not feel bound to accept the findings. The overall picture we get on a critical examination of the prosecution evidence is that PWs 3 & 4 were introduced as eye-witnesses only after the dead body was found.” 39. We find that the scriber of Case Crime No.478 of 2007, under Section 25/4 Arms Act, namely, Shabi Akhtar Zaidi was not examined by the trial court. No police personnel was examined to prove the said FIR by the trial court. The discovered knife was returned by the Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that seal of the bundle of knife was not matched with the recovered knife. Thus, the weapon used in the crime is also not proved. 40. After recording the aforesaid conclusions, which are based on the evidence adduced on record, we find that the finding recorded by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant is against the record and is perverse. Thus, the impugned judgement and order of the trial court suffers from infirmity and it deserves to be set aside. 41. 40. After recording the aforesaid conclusions, which are based on the evidence adduced on record, we find that the finding recorded by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant is against the record and is perverse. Thus, the impugned judgement and order of the trial court suffers from infirmity and it deserves to be set aside. 41. Appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgement and order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2007 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.478 of 2007, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25/4 Arms Act is hereby set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted from all the charges. 42. Accused-appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 43. Before parting, we appreciate Sri Krishna Kumar, learned amicus curiae, who has thoroughly and meticulously prepared the case. We are impressed with the arguments advanced by him. We direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to Sri Krishna Kumar, learned amicus curiae as honorarium for his valuable assistance in disposal of this appeal. The honorarium will paid to him within fifteen days. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgement and order to the State Legal Services Authority for necessary compliance. 44. Let lower court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgement and order for compliance.