JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. These two Appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 23.01.2015, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.207 of 2011, “State vs. Anil Chhabra and two Others”, by which, the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), and, in Sessions Trial No.208 of 2011, “State vs. Ashok Chhabra and Another”, by which, the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The Government Appeal No.85 of 2015 will be treated as a leading case. 3. In short, the prosecution case is that the informant Dilshad (PW1) informed the police Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar through his written information (Ext. Ka.1) dated 14.04.2011 that Anil Chhabra used to show obscene films to the minor son of his brother Kalua on internet in cyber café. When Kalua came to know about it, he went to the cyber café. The owner of the cyber café called Anil Chhabra and Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga. All three of them fired at the informant’s brother. Hanif (PW3) and Mobin Ali (PW2) saved the informant’s brother and brought him home. At the same time, the said three persons armed with licensed and country-made pistols reached the door of the informant’s brother’s house, where the informant’s brother was standing. They opened fire on the informant’s brother. Hanif, Mobin Ali and other persons took him to the hospital. He died on the way. 4. On the said information (Ext. Ka.1), an FIR (Ext.Ka.4) was registered against the respondents-accused persons Anil Chhabra, Ashok Chhabra and Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by the prosecution witness PW9 on 14.04.2011 at 21:30 hrs. 5. Inquest proceedings were conducted on 14.04.2011 and post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 15.04.2011. 6. Respondents-accused persons Anil Chhabra, Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga and Ashok Chhabra were arrested on 15.04.2011. 7. On 27.04.2011, one country-made pistol at the instance of the respondent-accused Ashok Chhabra and one country-made pistol at the instance of the respondent-accused Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga were recovered from the bushes. 8. An FIR (Ext. 6. Respondents-accused persons Anil Chhabra, Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga and Ashok Chhabra were arrested on 15.04.2011. 7. On 27.04.2011, one country-made pistol at the instance of the respondent-accused Ashok Chhabra and one country-made pistol at the instance of the respondent-accused Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga were recovered from the bushes. 8. An FIR (Ext. Ka.20) against Ashok Chhabra and Jagdish Chhabra alias Jagga was registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 27.04.2011 at 14:50 hrs. 9. The recovered pistols were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Site maps were prepared. Sanction (Ext.Ka.22) of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar was obtained to institute prosecution. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheets were filed by the Investigating Officer. 10. Charges were framed against the respondents-accused persons. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 11. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. 12. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The respondents-accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant contended that there are sufficient evidence on record against the respondents-accused persons, therefore, the judgment of acquittal is not justify. 15. Ms. Surriya Naz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused persons has supported the impugned judgment. 16. We have carefully assessed the evidence, produced by the prosecution. 17. PW1 Dilshad, the informant and brother of the deceased, witnesses Mobin Ali (PW2) and Hanif (PW3) have not supported the prosecution case. 18. PW1 Dilshad has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was in the market at the time of the incident. He does not know who shot his brother. He also does not know that there was any dispute with the accused persons regarding his brother’s son. The information (Ext. Ka.1) was written by someone from the public and his thumb impression was put on it by him. 19. PW2 Mobin Ali has stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and did not see the accused persons at the spot. He does not know who had committed murder of Kalua. 20. PW3 Hanif has stated that when he reached the house of Irshad alias Kalua, he saw that Kalua was injured and unconscious. He does not know who had committed murder of Kalua. 20. PW3 Hanif has stated that when he reached the house of Irshad alias Kalua, he saw that Kalua was injured and unconscious. When he asked the persons present on the spot about the incident, they told him that bullets had been fired during the stampede. 21. PW4 Mohammad Rafi stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and the police had not collected plain and blood stained soil from the spot in his presence. 22. PW6 Gulam Gaus is a witness of the inquest proceeding. 23. PW11 Naresh Chand, the Incharge- Inspector and PW8 Madan Lal, the Sub-Inspector, witness of the alleged country-made pistols have stated that on 27.04.2011, in the presence of Hanif (PW7), country-made pistols were recovered at the behest of accused Ashok Chhabra and Jagdish Chhabra. But, Mohd. Hanif (PW7) has not supported Naresh Chand (PW11) and Madan Lal (PW8). He has deposed that the police had not recovered the country-made pistols in his presence. 24. Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW10) and Dr. S.S. Kunwar conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on 15.04.2011. As per the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka.5), the cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage and shock due to anti-mortem gunshot injury. 25. PW11 Naresh Chand, the Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan of the incident site (Ext. Ka.6), recovered a blood stained bullet from the incident site, collected plain and blood stained soil from the spot, recovered alleged country-made pistols and prepared a site plan of the recovery site (Ext. Ka.9). 26. PW12 Om Prakash, the Incharge-Inspector, recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed charge-sheets. 27. Although, gunshot injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by the respondents – accused persons and in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the respondents – accused persons. Even grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. There is no positive, cogent and reliable evidence placed on record against the respondents – accused persons by the prosecution to prove its case against them. 28. Therefore, we are, in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Trial Court. Even grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. There is no positive, cogent and reliable evidence placed on record against the respondents – accused persons by the prosecution to prove its case against them. 28. Therefore, we are, in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Trial Court. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned herein. 29. As a result, the present both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Government Appeals are dismissed accordingly. 30. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of Government Appeal No.84 of 2015.