JUDGMENT : RAVI CHIRANIA, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by appellant Krishanlal, the sole accused, against the judgment of trial court dated 18.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 5/95 titled as State Vs. Krishanlal , whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six month’s simple imprisonment. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit-P/1) was submitted by one Rewat Ram (PW-1) before the SHO, P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar on 16.3.1994 stating therein that his sister was married to one Ghadsiram. He further stated that his sister was not having cordial relationship with her son i.e. present accused-appellant. According to the complainant Rewat Ram (PW-2), his sister was murdered by the accused by throttling her neck. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) is reproduced hereunder :- ^^lsok esa Jheku ,l0,p0vks0 lkgc Fkkuk iqfyl jkft;k'kkj Jheku th fuosnu gS fd esjh cgu 'kkUrh mez 50 lky ?kMlhjke [kkrh fuoklh 4 ,0ih0 ohjok.k dks fookgh gqbZ gS esjh cgu o esjk Hkkutk fdZ".k dh vkil esa ugha curh gS blfy, fdZ".k vyx gS fnukad 7-3-94 dks fdZ".k o esjh cgu 'kkUrh esjs xk¡o 'kknh es vkbZ rks 'kkUrh us crk;k dh fdZ".k esjs dks ekjus dh fQjkd esa gS rc eSaus o uUnjke us bls le>k;k fnukad 15-3-94 ds jkr ds 12 cts Vhdwjke tksrjke txnh'k fy[kes okys vk;s vkSj crk;k dh 'kkUrh dks fdZ".k us dUB ekSl dj ekj fn;kA djhc 4 cts lqcg 4 ,0ih0 vk;s vkSj esjs lkFk uUnjke guqeku eq[kjke Hkkuhjke o Hkkyk jke vk;s rFkk ogk ij chjcy Vhdwjke txnh'k vkseizdk'k us crk;k fd 15-3-94 ds 11 cts 'kkUrh us [kkyk ij >kyk nsdj cqyk;k rFkk crk;k fd fdZ".k esjs yMds us Äjsyw ckr dks ysdj esjs dUB ekSl dj ejk le>dj Hkkx x;k A gks'k vkus ij vkt yksxks dks cqyk;k gSA rc mlus dgk laxhrs ys pyks rc jktkjke ds VsDVªj ij ij laxhrs ys x;s ogka MkDVj vtqZu dks fn[kkbZ rc 'kkUrh ds dUB ekSlus dh ckr crkus ij mlus dgk lqjrx<+ ys tkvksa rc txnh'k dh thi esa ysdj ineiqjk ekSM rd vk;s rks 'kkUrh ej xbZ rc yk'k dks 3. On the aforesaid written report, police registered FIR No.29/94 at P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar on 16.3.1994 for offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused was arrested on 17.3.1994. On denial of charges, learned trial court conducted the trial, in which, from the prosecution side 22 witnesses were produced in evidence, namely, PW-1 Birbal Ram, PW-2 Arjun Ram, PW-3 Rewat Ram, PW-4 Nand Ram, PW-5 Mukh Ram, PW-6 Bhana Ram, PW-7 Hanuman, PW-8 Teeku Ram, PW-9 Jagdish, PW-10 Rajaram, PW-11 Om Prakash, PW-12 Balram, PW-13 Krishan Lal, PW-14 Ghadsi Ram (father of accused), PW-15 Madan Lal, PW-16 Jagdish, PW-17 Jote Ram, PW-18 Karan Singh, PW-19 Nihalchand, PW-20 Bimla, PW-21 Savitri and PW-22 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma. 4. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which, he stated that he has been falsely implicated. In defence, statement of DW-1 Geeta Devi, wife of appellant was recorded. 5. The learned trial court after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, passed judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.4.1996 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and was punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six month’s simple imprisonment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the present appeal on in as many as seven grounds , which are being reproduced as under :- “a) That the judgment of the learned trial court is against the evidence facts of the case and also against the Law. The trial court did not peruse the objection raised by defence in a right perspective. b) That the learned trial court did not appreciate the defence version about alibi. Most of the witnesses of prosecution have admitted in their court's statements that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence He had gone to village Sangeeta with his wife and father for the treatment of his wife and children. c) That the evidence of extra-judicial confession is totally false led with a view to involve the appellant falsely in the case. It is evident from the statement of Nandram P.W.4 that they had threatened Kishan and he confessed his guilt. The extra judicial confession received by threatening does not carry any value against the appellant. d) That the F.I.R. was lodged 24 hrs delayed. It is evident from the statement of Nandram P.W.4 that they had threatened Kishan and he confessed his guilt. The extra judicial confession received by threatening does not carry any value against the appellant. d) That the F.I.R. was lodged 24 hrs delayed. The embelishments and creations are bound to come in such a delayed F.I.R. which has not been considered by the trial court. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the maternal uncle of the appellant and not by his father. It is a matter of surprise. The witnesses before whom the extra judicial confession was made also did not Lodge an F.I.R. against the appellant. e) That all the witnesses of extra judicial confession of the village have gone hostile and did not support the prosecution. The witnesses who have supported the evidence of Extra judicial confession belong to the village of the complainant, who are under his impression The appellant had sold his land to the complainant Rawataram and demanded the residue of money from Rewataram and only for that purpose Rewataram has Lodged a false information against the appellant. f) That P.W.20 Vimla has also led an evidence of extra judicial confession by the appellant before her which is totally false as this fact did not find place in her statement made before police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The judgment of the trial court based on her statement is wrong, perverse and against the law. g) That the medical evidence does not support the oral evidence and cause of death as it is clear from the evidence on record that the deceased Shanti had survived after the act of throttling, In case the deceased had died of that injury of act she would not have called the witnesses at the scene of occurrence by raising her hands i.e. to say that the injury was not capable of causing the death in all probabilities and was not sufficient to cause death. The deceased died of shock (neurologic) not due to injury but due to mental shock. There was no fracture of larynx or pharynx bone or trachea hyoid bone was not fractured. Wind pipe was not fractured and the muscles of neck were not fractured. The deceased died of shock (neurologic) not due to injury but due to mental shock. There was no fracture of larynx or pharynx bone or trachea hyoid bone was not fractured. Wind pipe was not fractured and the muscles of neck were not fractured. The medical officer has given a contradictory conclusion about cause of death as he further has stated in his statement that there was possibility of death by the fracture of hyoid bone and of laryngeal bone.” 7. According to learned counsel, the appellant is not involved in present case and he has been falsely implicated. The learned trial court without examining material evidence and contrary to law of extra-judicial confession passed the judgment of conviction. To support his arguments, while questioning the judgment dated18.4.1996, learned counsel submitted that the complainant Rewat Ram, whose statements were recorded as PW-3, lodged a written report on 16.3.1994 stating in sum and substance that his sister was murdered by accused-appellant by throttling her neck. 8. A perusal of written report (Exhibit-P/1), which was reduced to FIR, shows that the written report was lodged by Rewat Ram on the information given by Teeku Ram (PW-8), Jotram (PW-17) and Jagdish (PW-16). According to Rewat Ram, the incident was informed to him by the above-mentioned persons . The counsel by reading certain lines from the complaint as lodged by PW-3 stated that as per PW-3, the deceased was alive when he reached the spot and he even took her to doctor. The lines as read by the counsel are reproduced as under:- ^^gks'k vkus ij vkt yksxks dks cqyk;k gSA rc mlus dgk laxhrs ys pyks rc jktkjke ds VsDVªj ij ij laxhrs ys x;s ogka MkDVj vtqZu dks fn[kkbZ rc 'kkUrh ds dUB ekSlus dh ckr crkus ij mlus dgk lqjrx<+ ys tkvksa rc txnh'k dh thi esa ysdj ineiqjk ekSM rd vk;s rks 'kkUrh ej xbZ rc yk'k dks ys x,A** Therefore, the allegation as levelled by PW-3 in his complaint is false as the deceased was alive even when he reached on the spot. Thereafter, learned counsel took us to the statements of the above-mentioned persons, whose statements were recorded as PW-8, PW-16 and PW-17 respectively. Thereafter, learned counsel took us to the statements of the above-mentioned persons, whose statements were recorded as PW-8, PW-16 and PW-17 respectively. According to learned counsel all these three witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support case of prosecution and also the written report lodged by the complainant on the basis of information given by the above witnesses. According to learned counsel, the very basis of registering criminal case against the accused-appellant lost its foundation and, therefore, the complete case is based on false evidence and there are serious material contradictions. Counsel, apart from above witnesses, also referred to statements of PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 & PW-19, who as per record of trial court were also declared hostile, thus, all the material witnesses failed to support the story of prosecution. 9. According to learned counsel, as the complainant is the person who instituted case against appellant, therefore, his statement as recorded by trial court as PW-3 being relevant and a perusal whereof would show that no case is made out against the appellant. 9. According to learned counsel, as the complainant is the person who instituted case against appellant, therefore, his statement as recorded by trial court as PW-3 being relevant and a perusal whereof would show that no case is made out against the appellant. The statement of PW-3 Rewat Ram is reproduced as under :- ^^eqyfte d`”.k gkftj vnkyr esjk lxk Hkkatk gSA djhc fiNys o"kZ ekg Qkxqu dh ckr gSA gekjs ikl tksrjke xkao laxhrk dk Vhdjke pd 4 ,-ih- dk gekjs ikl vk;s vkSj mUgksaus igys rks dgk fd rqEgkjh cgu ‘kkafr 'kkafr chekj gS rks geus dgk fd vHkh ikap fnu igys rks og gekjs ;gka ls paxh Hkyh xbZ gS tks vlyh ckr gS oks crkvks rks mUgksaus crk;k fd ‘kkafr dks mlds yM+ds —".k us xyk ?kksaV dj ekj fn;kA rks bl ij ij eSa] esjk HkkbZ uanjke] HkkbZ eq[kjke] guqeku] Hkkuhjke o HkkxhjFk mUgha dh thi esa Bkdfj;k cl vMMs rd vk;s fQj ogka ls nwljh thi djds pd 4 ,-ih- igqaps rks ogka gekjh cgu 'kkafr dks vkaxu esa lqyk j[kk Fkk og ejh iM+h FkhA —".k ogka ekStwn Fkk geus —".k ls iwNk fd D;k ckr gqbZ rks mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd esjs ls xyrh gks xbZ eSaus bldk xyk ?kksaV fn;kA ;g ckr mlus esjs vykok uanjke] guqeku] eq[kjke] Hkkuhjke o HkkxhjFk o py 4 ,-ih- ds jTthjke] Vhdwjke] tksrjke ds lkeus dgh Fkh fQj geus pd 4 ,-ih- ds ljiap chjcyjke o xkao laxhrk ds ljiap nkukjke dks cqyk;k rks mUgksaus dgk fd vc rks ckr dbZ xkaoksa esa Qsy xbZ gS blfy, iqfyl esa lwpuk djuh t:jh gSA---------------------------------------bl ij ge rhuksa pkjksa HkkbZ jkft;klj Fkkus esa x,A gekjs lkFk chjcy jke ljiap Hkh FkkA ftjg Jh enupan dkSf'kd vfèkoäk }kjk%& esjs cguksbZ dk uke ?kM+lhjke gS mlds ,d ek= yM+dk —".k eqyfte gh gSA ?kMlhjke igys 'ksjsokyk iatkc esa jgk djrk FkkA ogka mldh ikap ch?kk tehu FkhA ogka dh tehu csp nh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iatkc dh tehu tks ?kM+lhjke dh fcdokbZ mlds iSls geus j[k fy, vkSj bl dkj.k ?kMlhjke vFkkZr eqyfte ds firk dks pd 4 ,-ih esa vkuk iM+kA ;g xyr gS fd viuh cgu 'kkfr ds tsoj N% lksus dh eksgjsa o dkuksa dh lksus dh ckfy;k gh ge HkkbZ;ksa us j[k yh gksaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd bl dkj.k ls —“.k ls gekjh jaft'k jgrh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd —".k dks vkt rd iSls u fn, gksa vkSj u oks tsojkr fn, gksaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ge viuh cgu dh pd 4 ,-ih dh tehu Hkh gM+iuk pkgrs Fks vkSj bl dkj.k mls cgdk, gq, j[krs Fks vkSj vius çHkko esa j[krs Fks vkSj —".k eqyfte bl ckr dk fojksèk djrk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fdlh dkj.k geus ‘kkafr dh e`R;q ds lEcaèk esa —".k ij >wBk vkjksi yxk;k gks fd blus gekjs lkeus ;g gka Hkjh gks fd blus ‘kkafr dk xyk nckdj mldh gR;k dh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd blus gekjs lkeus bl ckr dh gka u Hkjh gks fd blus viuh eka dks ekjk gks vkSj ge jaft'k ds dkj.k blds fo#) >wBh xokgh ns jgs gSaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd geus ‘kkafr dh tehu gM+ius dh dksf'k'k dh blfy, gekjk cguksbZ dk fnekx [kjkc gks x;k gks vt [kqn dgk og rks 'kknh ds le; gh xMcM fnekx dk FkkA ge pd 4 ,-ih- esa lqcg lkpkj cts igqap x;s FksA ge lh/ks gh gekjs cguksbZ dh .kh esa x,A ogka igys ls gh jTthjke] gfjjke xkao laxhrk dk o xkao ds vkSj Hkh dbZ yksx cSBs FksA chl rhl vkneh cSBs FksA blds vykok vkSj dksbZ ugha FkkA esjk cguksbZ ?kMlhjke Hkh ogka ekStwn Fkk o —".k dh vkSjr Hkh FkhA txnh'k] vkseçdk'k] chjcy o Vhdwjke Hkh dgk FksA —".k Hkh muds lkFk gh cSBk FkkA ;g jks ugha jgk FkkA geus igqapus ds nl iUæg feuV ckn gh —".k ls iwNrkN dh rks blus gka Hkj nh vkSj dgk fd eSaus bls xyk ?kksaVdj ekj fn;kA geus dgk fd iapk;r cSBh gS tks QSlyk djs rks dj yksA rks iapk;r us ges —".k ij eqdnek ntZ djokus dk ugha dgk] geus gh djok;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus —".k dk >wBk uke fy[kk;k gks vkSj ;g u irk yxk gks fd 'kkafr dks fdlus ekjkA** 10. A perusal of statement of PW-3 shows that his entire narration is based on the information given to him by Teeku Ram (PW-8) regarding first the poor health condition of his sister and later on that his sister deceased-Shanti was murdered by her son Krishanlal i.e. accused-appellant herein, by throttling her neck. As PW-8 and the other relevant witnesses have already been declared hostile, therefore, the statement of PW-3 looses its significance and, thus, the facts as stated in written report and the evidence before the trial court is not sufficient piece of evidence to convict the appellant. According to learned counsel, a close comparison of the written report, which is Exhibit-P/1 lodged by PW-3 and his statement as recorded by the trial court would show that there are serious contradiction in the version as reported by him about the alleged incident. In the complaint Exhibit-P/1 the complainant stated that the deceased was alive and she was taken to the doctor, however, no such fact was stated in the examination in chief and the cross-examination. This shows material infirmities and contradictions in the story as narrated by PW-3 and, therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution story lost its base. 11. The learned counsel most importantly pointed out that during the entire period, accused-appellant was present there and despite alleged admission by him, remained on the spot. According to learned counsel for the appellant, if the accused would have committed any the alleged offence, then he would not have remained present there and would further not admit that he has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the evidence of PW-3 is nothing but self-narration and is based on the version of witnesses who informed him and were declared hostile by trial court, cannot be believed and, therefore, there can be no conviction on the basis of evidence of PW-3. 12. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of PW-1 Birbal Ram. Birbal Ram is neighbour of the appellant as well as the deceased, however, this witness despite being an important witness, was declared as hostile . 12. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of PW-1 Birbal Ram. Birbal Ram is neighbour of the appellant as well as the deceased, however, this witness despite being an important witness, was declared as hostile . The statement of PW-1 Birbal Ram is being reproduced as under :- ^djhc lky&lok lky igys gksyh ls igys dh ckr gSA lqcg 10&11 cts dk le; Fkk pd 4 ,0ih0 dh jksgh esa eSa vius [ksr esa ikuh nsus dh rS;kjh ds fy, x;k FkkA eSa [kkys ds lkFk tk jgk FkkA ;g [kkyk d`”.k eqyfte gkftj vnky dh ds fpirs gh gSA d`”.k dh eka ‘kkfUr ftls eSa tkurk Fkk D;ksafd esjk [ksr budh ds iM+ksl esa gSA [kkys ds fdukjs ij iM+h FkhA ds ikl gh [kkyk gSA eSaus mls ikuh fiyk;k og csgks'k lh FkhA eSaus iM+kslh [ksr okyksa dks vkokt nh rks Vhdwjke dqEgkj] txnh'k Lokeh] vkseizdk'k dqEgkj vk x;sA ‘kkfUr us gekjh ckr dk tokc ugha fn;k u dqN gesa crk;k u geus mlds ‘kjhj ij dksbZ fu’kku ns[ksA bl LVst ij vij yksd vfHk;kstd us i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr djokdj ftjg dh vuqefr pkghA^ xxxxxxxxxxxxx by Addl P.P. iqfyl us esjs c;ku fy;s FksA c;ku Ex P1 dk Hkkx A to B ftl izdkj fy[kk gS eSaus ugha fy[kok;kA Ex P1 dk Hkkx C t D ^^fQj ‘kkfUr us crk;k ----------- HkjhaV lh yxh gqbZ Fkh** eSaus ugha fy[kk;kA bldk Hkkx E to F lgh fy[kk gSA bldk Hkkx G to H vtqZu MkDVj------------------ d`”.k us esjk daB eksl fn;k eSus ugha fy[kok;kA bldk Hkkx I to J eSaus ugh fy[kk;kA ;g xyr gS fd ‘kkfUr us esjs lkeus ;g dgk gks fd mlds yM+ds d`”.k us mldk xyk ?kksaVk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd eSa d`”.k dks cpkus ds fy, c;ku cny jgk gSA xxxxxxxxxxxxx Jh enupUn }kjk ‘kkfUr ds ,d gh yM+dk d`”.k gSA d`”.k jkth [kq’kh vius eka&cki ds ikl jgrk FkkA d`”.k dh vius ekek ls ugha curh FkhA** 13. A perusal of cross-examination of this hostile witness clearly shows that he was not informed by deceased-Shanti that her son Krishna murdered her by throttling the neck. Most importantly this neighbour further stated that the appellant was the only son of the deceased and he had healthy relationship with his parents, however, he stated an important fact that the appellant was not having good relationship with his maternal uncle ¼ekek½ . 14. Most importantly this neighbour further stated that the appellant was the only son of the deceased and he had healthy relationship with his parents, however, he stated an important fact that the appellant was not having good relationship with his maternal uncle ¼ekek½ . 14. As already mentioned above, the prosecution produced in as many as 22 witnesses to support its case, however, out of the 22 witnesses, 13 material witnesses turned hostile and further, the evidence of PW-3 i.e. complainant, which was based on the version narrated to him by these witnesses also looses its significance, thus, the prosecution completely failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt 15. The counsel then referred to statements of remaining witnesses, namely, PW-4 Nand Ram, PW-5 Mukh Ram and PW-6 Bhana Ram. These persons are brothers and cousin brother (PW-7) of deceased-Shanti and further the counsel referred to the statements of two daughters of the deceased i.e. PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri. Counsel read over the statements of brothers of deceased-Shanti i.e. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 & PW-7. A common fact as pointed from the statements of above witnesses by learned counsel is that they have stated that they were informed about the incident by Jotram, Jagdish, Birbal Ram and Teeku Ram and, therefore, the entire narration is based on the information of all the above persons, who were declared as hostile by the prosecution, therefore, the statements of PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6 cannot be believed similar to the statement of PW-3 i.e. the complainant Rewat Ram. 16. The counsel also referred to statement of another cousin brother of the deceased, namely, PW-7 Hanuman, whose story is based on the information given to him by PW-3 Rewat Ram and, stated that he just accompanied them to the village where their sister had died. According to learned counsel, statement of this witness also is not sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged crime. 17. In the last, two daughters of deceased i.e. PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri , being the important witnesses, are also required to be examined by this Court, according to learned counsel. According to learned counsel, statement of this witness also is not sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged crime. 17. In the last, two daughters of deceased i.e. PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri , being the important witnesses, are also required to be examined by this Court, according to learned counsel. The statement of PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri are reproduced as under :- ^ihMCY;w&20 1- ?kM+lhjke esjs firk gS vkSj esjh eka dk uke 'kkafr FkkA esjh 'kkafr dks esjs HkkbZ fd'ku us daB eksl dj ekjh FkhA esjs cki ekufld :i ls fof{kIr FkkA gesa rks nkx ij yk;s Fks] gesa ckr dk irk ughaA eSaus —".k ls iwNk Fkk fd D;k ckr Fkh —".k us dgk fd eka dks eSaus daB eksl dj ekjk gSA ftjg vfèkoDrk eqyftek %& 2- tehu dh dk'r dk dke esjs HkkbZ —".k gh fd;k djrk FkkA esjs HkkbZ ?kj esa vdsyk gh yM+dk FkkA esjs HkkbZ ds esjh eka ls lEcaèk vPNs ugha FksA ge nwljs fnu nkg laLdkj ij igqap x, FksA esjk ifr vkSj eSa x, FksA esjh nwljh lxh cgu lkfo=h esjs ls igys vk xbZ FkhA ogka pkj xkaoksa dh iapk;r gqbZ FkhA xkao gjnklokyh] chjok.kk] 4 ,-ih- o laxhrk ds yksx iapk;r esa FksA iapk;r 4 ,-ih- esa xkao ds xqokM esa gqbZ FkhA eSa o esjh cgu lkfo=h ml iapk;r esa ugha x, FksA esjk ifr o lkfo=h dk ifr iapk;r esa x, FksA ml iapk;r eSa ;g ckr vk;h fd esjs HkkbZ us eka dks xyk ?kksV dj ekj nhA ;g iapk;r djhc nl cts vxys fnu gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ,slh dksbZ iapk;r u gqbZ gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esa vkt iapk;r okyh ckr cukdj >wBs c;ku ns jgh gksÅA eqyfte us esjh eka dks daB ekSl dj ugha ekjk gks ;g Hkh xyr gSA ge ogka ?kj ij 12 fnu rd jgs FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs lkeus eqyfte us tqeZ dk bdcky u fd;kA ihMCY;w&21 lkfo=h 1- esjs cki dk uke ?kMlhjke o eka dk uke 'kkafr gSA esjs HkkbZ dk uke —".k gSA esjh eka 'kkafr dks rhu pkj lky igys esjs HkkbZ us daB eksl dj ekjh FkhA pkj xkao dh iapk;r gqbZ Fkh] blesa Hkh ;gh ckr vk;h FkhA ftjg vfèkoDrk eqyfte%& 2- ftl fnu esjh ds eka ejh Fkh] iapk;r mlh fnu gks xbZ FkhA ;g iapk;r xkao ds xqokM esa gqbZ FkhA iapk;r 'kke ds le; djhc ikap cts 'kke dks gqbZ FkhA djhc nks&lks pkj lkS vkneh FkhA eSa vkSj fceyk ml iapk;r esa ugha xbZ] gekjs vkneh x, FksA esjs o fceyk ds vknfe;ksa us crk;k fd iapk;r esa ckr vk;h gS fd —".k us eka dks daB eksl dj ekj fn;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa >wBs c;ku ns jgh gksÅaA**^ 18. According to learned counsel, a perusal of statements of both the daughters show that they are not the eye-witnesses and further they were not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident. In cross-examination these witnesses were not able to make any concrete statement against the appellant which could show that the appellant had any motive on account of which he committed the alleged offence, therefore, according to learned counsel the statement of these two witnesses is also not reliable rather is only hearsay evidence and not sufficient and relevant for the purpose of recording conviction of the accused-appellant. 19. According to learned counsel, there is serious contradiction in the statement of PW-20 Bimla about the fact that she was informed by the accused-appellant that he killed mother by throttling her neck. Learned counsel pointed out that in cross- examination PW-20 stated that the fact of killing the mother by the appellant came in the meeting of Panchayat, therefore, the fact of making extra-judicial confession to PW-20 is incorrect and in reality she received information about the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant from the meeting of the Panchayat. 20. Learned counsel further also strongly pointed out that both the sisters i.e. PW-20 & PW-21, namely, Bimla and Savitri are not the eye-witnesses and, therefore, they had no first hand information about the alleged incident. A common and consistent fact can be noted from the cross-examination of both the sisters is that their husband, who went to the meeting of the Panchayat, informed they that in the Panchayat meeting this fact came out that the appellant killed his mother by throttling her neck. This consistent fact, according to learned counsel proves the fact that there was no extra-judicial confession to PW-20 or to anyone else. 21. In the last, counsel took us to the statement of Dr. O.P. Sharma, whose statement was recorded by the trial court as PW-22. Dr. This consistent fact, according to learned counsel proves the fact that there was no extra-judicial confession to PW-20 or to anyone else. 21. In the last, counsel took us to the statement of Dr. O.P. Sharma, whose statement was recorded by the trial court as PW-22. Dr. OP Sharma in his cross-examination stated as follows :- ^^ftjg vfèkoäk eqyfte%& 2- lEHkor% e`R;q iksLVekVZe djus ds 24 ?kUVs dh vofèk esa gqbZ FkhA gkbZMcksu vkSj ysjsfdUl dh dkfVZys;l dk ÝSDpj ugha FkkA ysjsfdUl dk ysljs'ku ugha FkkA gok dh uyh VwVh gbZ ugha FkhA xnZu dh lkeus dh eklisf'k;ka VwVh gqbZ ugha Fkh ijUrq muesa [kwu tek gqvk FkkA ysjsft;y dkfVZys;t Fkk] dksjeks ÝsDpj ugha FksA lEHkor% gkbZMcksu dk VwVuk] ysjsft;y dkfVZys;t dk ÝsDVj bR;kfn mijksDr xyk ?kksVus ls gksus dh lEHkkouk T;knk gSA bl ekeys esa xyk ?kksVus ls psgjs ij uhykiu vkuk lEHko ugha Fkk ijUrq xyk ?kksVdj gR;k dh tk;s rks psgjs ij uhykiu vkuk lEHko gSA e`R;q iwoZ dh lHkh pksVsa lkèkkj.k gS ,oa HkksVsa gfFk;kj dh vk;h gqbZ gSA e`R;q iwoZ crk;h gqbZ pksVsa vius vki esa e`R; dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gksrhA [kqn dgk fd ;fn bl pksVksa ls 'k‚d gks tk,] la;qDr :i ls ;g pksVsa 'kkd mRiUu djsa rks e`R; gks ldrh gSA Hk; ls U;wjkstsfud 'kkd gksuk lEHko gS] vkSj mlls e`R;q gks ldrh gSA** According to doctor, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death. He further stated that in case of throttling it is possible that Blue marks would come, however, there were no sign of Blue marks on the person of deceased. He, therefore, doubted complete story of prosecution that the deceased died on account of throttling of neck by the accused-appellant. Even the medical opinion as given by PW-22 is not conclusive to support the case of prosecution and to convict the accused. 22. In conclusion, learned counsel submitted that none of the witnesses of prosecution supported the version of complainant Rewat Ram (PW-3), who lodged the written report and despite that, the learned trial court in complete disregard to the fact that almost all the material witnesses turned hostile OR made their statement on the basis of information given to them by the witnesses, who turned hostile, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC with punishment of imprisonment for life. In these circumstance, the judgment of learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit while supporting the judgment of trial court stated that the accused- appellant on account of land dispute had a motive and, therefore, he murdered his mother and by minutely noticing the evidence as led by prosecution and also considering the extra-judicial confession made by appellant to PW-20, the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC with punishment of life imprisonment. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused record of trial court and noted the detailed submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. We shall also examined the evidence and arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. To begin with that, we have noted the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that 22 witnesses were produced by prosecution, out of that PW-2, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17 & PW-19 were declared hostile by the prosecution. Further, complainant Rewat Ram, whose statement was recorded by trial court as PW-3 and who lodged the written report on 16.3.1994, failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove guilt of the accused-appellant. The statement of PW-3 himself is based on the information as given to him by PW-8, PW-9, PW-16 & PW-17 and all these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, the version of the complainant on the basis of which a criminal case was instituted becomes a hearsay evidence and not a reliable piece of evidence had come on record for convicting appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. The four brothers of deceased including complainant PW-3 i.e. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 & PW-7 and the two daughters of deceased, namely, PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri also failed to make out any incriminating statement against the appellant. None of the above witnesses were able to show any motive available with appellant for causing the alleged offence. The four brothers of deceased including complainant PW-3 i.e. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 & PW-7 and the two daughters of deceased, namely, PW-20 Bimla and PW-21 Savitri also failed to make out any incriminating statement against the appellant. None of the above witnesses were able to show any motive available with appellant for causing the alleged offence. Making an allegation is simple but for proving the guilt, the prosecution must produce reliable witnesses who by their evidence can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 25. On the basis of statements of all the relevant witnesses whose statements were referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant and further the statements of remaining witnesses, which have been reproduced by us in the preceding paras nowhere supports the story of prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-18 Karan Singh failed to show by his investigation that it was the accused-appellant who committed the alleged offence. We have also considered the statement of PW-22 Dr. O.P. Sharma, whose statement has ben reproduced in para-19 of the judgment, a perusal of which, makes it clear that PW-22 himself stated that the injuries as reported were not sufficient to cause death and the deceased died due to shock. The statement of PW- 22 has rightly been questioned by learned counsel for the appellant in ground (g) of the appeal, where learned counsel questioned the judgment by referring to the medical evidence and stating that the deceased died due to shock and not due to injury. The evidence of PW-22 when examined in the light of ground (g) as raised by the appellant, this Court notice that there was no fracture of larynx or pharynx bone or trachea hyoid bone and further the wind pipe was also not fractured. 26. After carefully examining statement of PW-22 and the post-mortem report, this Court has no doubt in concluding that the medical evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt of the appellant, therefore, the trial court committed a serious mistake while convicting the appellant. 27. This Court after examining complete evidence fails to find any evidence worth the name which could be against the appellant and is sufficient to convict him for the offence under Section302 IPC. 28. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. 27. This Court after examining complete evidence fails to find any evidence worth the name which could be against the appellant and is sufficient to convict him for the offence under Section302 IPC. 28. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., stated that that because of family dispute he has been falsely implicated and he was not even present when the alleged incident occurred and the same fact was also stated by his wife DW-1 Geeta in her statement before the learned trial court. It appears that there was some petty land dispute between the family members, however, there was no litigation/case filed or pending between them, therefore, there was no motive available with the appellant to commit the alleged crime. 29. Now, we shall advert to findings arrived at by the trial court. In para-11 to para-18, learned trial court discussed the statements of prosecution witnesses. In para-19, learned trial court recorded what DW-1 Geeta Devi stated in her statement. In para 20, 21, 22 & 23 learned trial court discussed through the citation/judgments, however, this Court fails to find any cogent reason recorded by learned trial court on the basis of the statement of any witness and other evidence so as to show that the appellant had committed the alleged offence. In para 20, 21, 22 & 23 learned trial court discussed through the citation/judgments, however, this Court fails to find any cogent reason recorded by learned trial court on the basis of the statement of any witness and other evidence so as to show that the appellant had committed the alleged offence. The learned trial court discussed evidence in detail and recorded its finding in para-22, 23 & 24, which is being re-produced as under :- ^^22- cpko i{k }kjk esjs le{k 1995 fØfeuy y‚ tjuy ,l-lh- 738 cyfoUæflag cuke iatkc jkT; çLrqr dh xbZA bl ekeys esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku ,d detksj ç—fr dh lk{; gS] bls mi;ksx esa ykus ds fy, iw.kZ lkoèkkuh dh vko';drk gSA tgka ;g laLoh—fr lafnXèk çrhr gksrh gS ogka ;g viuh mi;ksfxrk [kks nsrh gS QyLo:i ,slh laLoh—fr ds fy, lEiqf"V vko';d gSA yfEcr ekeys ds rF; bl ekeys ls fHkUu gSA esjs le{k 1990 vkj-lh-lh- 191 jkt- jkT; cuke ewypan çLrqr dh xbZA ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ekSf[kd ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku lafnXèk gS D;ksfd bldk fuekZ.k ckn esa dHkh Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl ekeys ds rF; Hkh yfEcr ekeys ls fHkUu gSA 1995 fØfeuy y‚ fjiksZVj ¼jkt-½ 422 enuyky cuke jktå jkT; çLrqr dh xbZA fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd vijkèk dks fl) djus ds fy, ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; iw.kZ ugha gSA ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd e`R;q ds i'pkr vfHk;qDr us ?kj NksM+k vFkok mlds ckn og viuh iRuh ds lkFk jgkA vr% lUnsg dk ykHk fn;k x;kA bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ds fo:) ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ds :i esa vfUre ckn ns[ks tkus dh ,d ek= lk{; FkhA ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku dh lk{; bl ekeys esa ugha FkhA esjs lkeus 1982 fØfeuy y‚ fjikZsVj ¼jktå½ 206 ykèkw cuke jkt- jkT; çLrqr dh xbZ bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr us ,syhch dk rdZ j[kk FkkA fuf.kZr fd;k x;k fd vfHk;kstu i{k ds fy, ;g vko';d gS fd og vfHk;qDr dk vijkèk eas Hkkx ysuk fl) djsA yfEcr ekeys ds rF; Hkh bl ekeys ls iw.kZr;k fHkUu gSA 23- 1992 ,l-lh-lh- 598 enuxksiky cuke uoy nwcs ds ekeys esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd çR;sd ekeys esa ;g vko';d ugha gS fd ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku dh lEiqf"V vko';d gksA ;fn laLoh—fr fcuk ncko fcuk ykyp o yksHk ds LosPNkiwoZd lkQ 'kCnksa esa dh xbZ gS rks og lk{; vfHk;qDr ds fo:) i<+h tk ldrh gS ,oa mlds vk/kkj ij nks"kflf) dh tk ldrh gSA 1977 ,l-lh-lh- ¼fØfeuy½ 614 ikjkflag cuke iatkc jkT; ds ekeys esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd çR;sd ekeys esa ;g vko';d ugha gS fd ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y laLoh—fr dh leiqf"V gksA dsoy blh vkèkkj ij nks"kflf) dh tk ldrh gSA 1996 fØfeuy y‚ tjuy 5 jaxèkj cuke mM+hlk jkT; ds ekeys esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd gR;k ds ekeys esa dsoy ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku ds :i esa çLrqr dh xbZ gSA xokgksa dks çfrijh{k.k esa ;g ugha lq>k;k x;k Fkk fd vfHk;qDr us ,slh dksbZ laLohd`fr ugha dh ;k bls cyiwoZd çkIr fd;k x;k FkkA fuf.kZr fd;k x;k fd ;g laLoh—fr fo'oluh; gS ,oa blds vkèkkj ij nks"kflf) dh xbZ FkhA fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 5 esa of.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; bl ç—fr dh gksuh pkfg, fd ftlls dsoy ,d ek= fu.kZ; ;g çkIr gks fd vfHk;qDr gh nks"kh gS] blds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ mièkkj.kk dkfjr ugha gksuh pkfg,A U;k;ky; }kjk iSjk la[;k 6 esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd U;k;ky; dks ;g lUrks"k gksuk vko';d gS fd ;g laLoh—fr fcuk ncko vkSj fcuk ykyp LosPNkiwoZd dh xbZ gSA ;g laLoh—fr nks"kflf) dk vkèkkj gks ldrh gSA ftl O;fDr ds le{k laLoh—fr dh xbZ gS ;fn og vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ }s"k] bZ";k ugha j[krk] nwj nwj rd vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ 'k=qrk ugha gS ogka ;g laLoh—fr fo'okl ;ksX; gSA ;g fu.kZ; eqR[kjkt cuke ;w-ih- jkT; ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1975 ,l-lh- 1328 ds vkèkkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA bl ekeys esa Hkh dsoy ek= ,DlVªk T;wfMf'k;y duQs'ku ,oa fpfdRld dh lk{; ds vykok vU; dksbZ lk{; ekStwn ugha Fkh] vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) fd;k x;k FkkA 24- yfEcr ekeys esa fpfdRld ih-M- 22 }kjk Li"V dgk x;k gS fd e`R;q dk dkj.k xyk ?kksVus ls 'kkd mRiUu gksuk Fkk rFkk xnZu ds ikl jxM dk fu'kku Fkk ,oa xnZu ds lkeus dh ekalisf'k;ksa ij [kwu tek gqvk FkkA ;fn ge vfHk;qDr ds ekek ¼ih-M- 3½ jsorjke] ¼ih-M- 4½ uan jke] ¼ih-M- 6½ Hkkukjke o ¼ih-M -7½ guqeku ds le{k vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ laLoh—fr dks iw.kZr;k fo'okl;ksX; ugha Hkh ekus rks Hkh gekjs le{k vfHk;qDr }kjk vU;= vius cgu ih-M- 20 ds le{k dh xbZ laLohd`fr dks fo'okl ;ks; ugha ekuus dk ge dksbZ dkj.k ugha ikrs gSaA ih- 20 foeyk ds le{k vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ laLoh—fr fcuk yksHk] ykyp] fcuk ncko ds iw.kZr;k LosPNk ls dh xbZ laLoh—fr FkhA ih-M- 20 dk vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ eueqVko ;k oSeuL; ;k }s"k ugha FkkA ih-M- 20 fceyk Lo;a vius HkkbZ dks gR;k tSls vijkèk ds fy, D;ks >wBk Qalk;sxh] ,slk dksbZ dkj.k u rks ih-M- 20 gSA lq>k;k x;k gS vkSj u gh i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA ih-M- 20 foeyk ds dFkuksa dks vfo'oluh; ekuus dk eSa dksbZ Hkh dkj.k ugha ikrk gawA** 30. Having examined the above-quoted findings as recorded in the judgment, it appears that the trial court convicted the appellant on the ground of extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant to PW-20 i.e. his sister. Apart from this, the trial court half-heartedly also tried to consider the extra- judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 & PW-7. The law in regard to extra-judicial confession is well settled and further the trial court on assumptions presumed that why would PW-20, sister of the appellant, would implicate him into such an offence and on that basis the trial court find it sufficient to convict the appellant. 31. As already discussed above by us that all the material witnesses produced by the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, however, despite failure of prosecution in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial court based the judgment of conviction on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant, which counsel for the appellant has disputed. The law in respect of extra-judicial confession is well settled. Such a confession as per the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court is a weak evidence and must be accepted with great care and caution. Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue of extra-judicial confession in the case of Sahadevan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , wherein the Court held that in case of circumstantial evidence the onus lies on the prosecution to complete the chain of evidence so that the guilt of accused can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the courts are duty bound to examine extra-judicial confession with care and caution. Extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence, requires due appreciation and consideration of all the material evidence on record while keeping in mind that there are no material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities in the version of the prosecution. In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the previous judgments in para-21 had laid down the following principle : “21. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles (i) The extra - judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra - judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra - judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 32. In a recent judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 2861 of 2025 decided on 06.08.2025 while considering the judgment of Sahadevan (supra), in para-21 of the judgment held as under :- “29. The law on the evidentiary value of extrajudicial confessions is well settled that such a confession has very weak evidentiary value and should be accepted with great care and caution. This court in Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0499/2012 : 2012:INSC:209 : (2012) 6 SCC 403 undertook a thorough examination of the jurisprudence on the evidentiary value of extrajudicial confessions and laid down certain guiding principles, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 22. Upon a proper analysis of the above- referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. iii) It should inspire confidence. iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” (Emphasis Supplied) 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment passed in the case of Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) has cautioned that extra-judicial confession, being a very weak piece of evidence, should be taken as a base for conviction with due care and caution and only when it it is supported by corroborated evidence of the prosecution. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court while basing the conviction on extra-judicial confession, the Court must take into consideration that there is no material discrepancy and inherent probabilities in the story of the prosecution and the evidence as brought before the trial court. 34. Following the law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan (supra) & Shanti Devi (Supra) and noticing the fact that all the material witnesses have turned hostile and further the complainant and other brothers and sisters were not present at the time of incident and as hearsay evidence have tried to support the case of the prosecution. We fail to notice that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We have noted the discrepancies and also the probabilities on which the trial court based its judgment of conviction and, therefore, failed to meet the principles governing the extra-judicial confession as laid down in the above-mentioned judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 35. We fail to notice that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We have noted the discrepancies and also the probabilities on which the trial court based its judgment of conviction and, therefore, failed to meet the principles governing the extra-judicial confession as laid down in the above-mentioned judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 35. This Court has cautiously examined statement of the complainant PW-3 and also most importantly of PW-20 Bimla while considering the findings as recorded by the trial court of conviction on the basis of extra-judicial confession and we have no doubt about in recording this finding that there is no extra-judicial confession made by appellant to PW-20 as both the sisters stayed together in their house and both were not present at the time of incident and a consistent and common fact has been stated by both of them in their statement before the trial court that they got the information about the alleged incident stated to have been committed by the appellant from the meeting of the Panchayat. This fact leads to the conclusion that there was no extra-judicial confession made by appellant to PW-20. 36. On the basis of facts and reasoning as recorded by this Court, the findings of learned trial court are erroneous, baseless and further contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed in the case of Sahadeven (supra) and Shanti Devi (supra), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the Court while considering extra-judicial confession, which is a very weak piece of evidence. 37. Apart from this, we have also noted that the Investigating Officer and other witnesses failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of the same, the conviction as recorded by the trial court by its judgment dated 18.4.1996 cannot stand. 38. For the reasons as discussed in the aforementioned paras, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.4.1996 passed the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No.5/95 ( State Vs. Krishanlal ) is hereby quashed and set aside. 39. The appellant is already on bail. His bail-bonds stands discharged. The record of trial court be sent back forthwith. 40. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S, accused-appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. Krishanlal ) is hereby quashed and set aside. 39. The appellant is already on bail. His bail-bonds stands discharged. The record of trial court be sent back forthwith. 40. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S, accused-appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so.