JUDGMENT : BHUWAN GOYAL, J. 1. This is criminal leave to appeal under Section 419(i)(iii) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the appellant-State assailing impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.06/2019 (C.I.S. No. 1449/2019), vide which accused-respondents have been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2019, complainant-Radhakrishna Gupta (P.W. 2), submitted a written report (Ex.P/6) at the Police Station Ganj, Ajmer to the effect that on 27.04.2019 at 10.00 – 10.15 O’clock, he had come to Ghati Wale Balaji Mandir, where some persons had told him that three persons were attacking a person with stones at Ramprasad Ghat. On hearing them, he reached there and found that two persons ran towards the hill on seeing him and the person who was assaulted had injuries on the back of his head, name Dashrath was written on his hand and there was a tattoo of Trishul on his hand, clothes were soaked in blood. Both the persons had injured him by hitting him on the head with stones, then he called ambulance 108 but could not contact them, then he contacted 100 and gave the above information and then, went towards JLN to get an ambulance. On the way, he found 108 at Subhash Udyan. After talking to the driver, he came back to Ramprasad Ghat to see the injured person. The injured person was unconscious. At that time, he had heard that Saddam and Ali had beaten up Dashrath. He took him to JLN emergency and the police had come from the police station etc. On the basis of said written report, F.I.R. No.111/2019 was registered under Sections 323, 341 & 308 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, injured Dashrath died, therefore, police added Section 302/34 of I.P.C. in the matter. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused- respondents under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of sessions, from where it has been transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Ajmer (for short ‘trial court hereinafter’). After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused- respondents under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of sessions, from where it has been transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Ajmer (for short ‘trial court hereinafter’). The trial court framed charge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against accused- respondents and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has passed judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 acquitting accused-respondents for the alleged offences. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor on admission. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of offence of murder of deceased by accused- respondents. This fact has been corroborated from the identification parade of the accused as well as recovery of bloodstained clothes at the instance of the accused-respondents, on which human blood was found in FSL. Thus, identification parade and FSL Report available on record have also connected accused-respondents with commission of crime in the present case. But despite that the trial court has erred in not believing the testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses and evidence available on record in right perspective and has wrongly acquitted accused-respondents without any cogent reasons. He has, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal may be granted to the appellant-State. 5. We have considered arguments and have gone through impugned judgment and record of the trial court. 6. In the present case, the criminal prosecution regarding murder of deceased Dashrath alias Paaji was launched on the basis of a written report submitted by complainant Radhakrishna (P.W.2), who is stated to have when reached the spot, found that two persons ran towards the hill on seeing him and the person who was assaulted had injuries on the back of his head, name Dashrath was written on his hand and there was a tattoo of Trishul on his hand, clothes were soaked in blood. During investigation, the police recorded statement of one Taj Mohammad, who is stated to have seen accused-respondents beating the deceased and tried to rescue him. During investigation, the police recorded statement of one Taj Mohammad, who is stated to have seen accused-respondents beating the deceased and tried to rescue him. Taj Mohammad has not been produced by the prosecution in the witness box, whereas, P.W. 2 – Radhakrishna has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know the person, who is said to have been beaten up. He did not know what the fight was about. He did not know how long the fight lasted. He has also stated that he did not see the fight taking place. He did not see 2-3 persons fighting, who are said to have fled from there. When he reached there, nobody told him that people who were running away had committed murder but when they saw him, they started running away and from this, he guessed that they had committed murder. He has also admitted that three names which he had mentioned were given to him by the police. P.W. 4 – Prem Kumar, who was Investigation Officer, has admitted in his cross-examination that during entire investigation, he did not find any eye-witness. P.W. 12 – Jai Singh, the Investigation Officer, has admitted in his cross-examination that none of the eye-witnesses had described the appearance of the accused. Thus, it has been established that Radhakrishna was not an eye-witness and did not see the accused-respondents beating the accused. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that as per written report (Ex.P/6) submitted by Radhakrishna (P.W. 2), name of Dashrath was written on the hand and there was a tattoo of Trishul on his hand of the deceased, whereas, P.W. 2 – Radhakrishan in his examination-in-chief has stated that he saw name Dashrath written on the hand of the deceased and symbol of ‘Trishul’ and ‘Om’ was made on it. However, a perusal of the Memo of Panchayatnama (Ex.P/8) reveals that it was mentioned that there was symbol of Sikh religion, Sahib Jaan written and tattoo of ‘Bichchu’ made on his right arm and ‘S Dashrath’ written on his right hand and mark of arrow between heart was made but there is no mention of mark of ‘Trishul’ on his hand. 8. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that incident in the present case took place on 27.04.2019, whereas, accused-respondents Imran Sheikh and Ali Ashgar were arrested on 11.05.2019 & 06.05.2019 and their identification parade was conducted on 23.07.2019 i.e. after delay of around two and a half months and accused-respondent Mohammad Sharif was arrested on 19.09.2019 and his identification parade was conducted on 25.09.2019 i.e. after delay of almost one week. P.W. 2 – Radhakrishna in his cross-examination has stated that first identification of two persons was conducted two and a half to three months after the incident and the second identification of another person was conducted two months after the first identification. The first identification was of Ali Ashgar and Imran Sheikh and second identification was of Sharif. There is no justification given by prosecution for conducting identification parade of accused-respondents after such a long delay. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Application for Remand of the accused-respondents, they were not kept “Bapardah” P.W. 12 – Jai Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that photo of accused Mohammad Sharif was affixed on memo of arrest. Thus, identification parade of the accused-respondents is of no significance. 9. So far as verification of place of incident at the instance of accused-respondents is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that verification of place of occurrence at the instance of accused- respondent Imran Sheikh, Ali Ashgar and Mohammad Sharif was conducted vide Ex.P/14 dated 11.05.2019, Ex.P/17 dated 07.05.2019 and Ex.P/21 dated 26.07.2019, respectively. Whereas, a perusal of the site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.P/1) would show that during the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site-plan on 28.04.2019. Thus, it has been established that the place of incident was well within the knowledge of the investigation officer since from 28.04.2019 itself. Therefore, mere verification of place of occurrence at the instance of accused-respondents too is of no worth credence. 10. With regard to recovery of bloodstained clothes, a perusal of record reveals that bloodstained clothes of the deceased Dashrath alias Paaji were recovered by the police vide Ex.P/11 on05.05.2019, whereas, bloodstained clothes of accused Ali Ashgar and Imran Sheikh were recovered vide Ex.P/12 dated 07.05.2019 and Ex.P/15 dated 11.05.2019, respectively. 10. With regard to recovery of bloodstained clothes, a perusal of record reveals that bloodstained clothes of the deceased Dashrath alias Paaji were recovered by the police vide Ex.P/11 on05.05.2019, whereas, bloodstained clothes of accused Ali Ashgar and Imran Sheikh were recovered vide Ex.P/12 dated 07.05.2019 and Ex.P/15 dated 11.05.2019, respectively. As per FSL Report (Ex.P/38), human blood of ‘AB’ group was found on the pants of the deceased (Exhibit-4), pants of accused Ali Ashgar (Exhibit-6) and shirt of accused Imran Sheikh (Exhibit-7). However, there is no evidence available on record to establish that bloodstains found on the recovered clothes was of the deceased because there is no evidence with regard to blood group of deceased available on record. Thus, in these circumstances, from the evidence which has available on record, the prosecution has not been able to establish its story against accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt that it was accused-respondents who murdered the deceased and none else. 11. It is also pertinent to note here that death of deceased Dashrath alias Paaji took place after four days of the incident but during the investigation, investigation officer did not make any efforts to record statement of the deceased. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to grant leave to appeal and same is hereby rejected. The Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 13. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.