Delhi High Court
Shyam Sunder And Raj Kumar vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 1 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995IIAD(DELHI)136, 58(1995)DLT505, 1995(33)DRJ511
Author: S.D. Pandit
Bench: S.D. Pandit
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) Shri Shyam Sunder and Shri Raj Kumar, the two real brothers, have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, having caused the murder of their step brother Ram Narain vide judgment dated February 28, 1992, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and vide subsequent order of even date, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.50.00 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one day. Shyam Sunder has been also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one day. Both these convicts have challenged their convictions and sentences by filing the present appeal.
(2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Public Witness 2 Vidyawati, widow of deceased Ram Narain, was living in house No.T-5316, Block 8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, at the relevant time. Her deceased husband had three step brothers, namely, Gopal Krishan and the two appellants and those step brothers were living with their real mother Smt.Sheila Devi in the adjoining house. The deceased was a three wheeler scooter driver. It appears that the relations between Vidyawati and her husband on the one side and three step brothers of Ram Narain and their real mother on the other side were not happy. It is alleged that on August 13, 1986, at about 9 Am in the morning Smt.Sheila Devi had picked up a quarrel with Vidyawati Public Witness 2 on the question of water being poured in the drain from the roof/terrace of the house of Vidyawati but certain residents in the neighborhood intervened and pacified the parties. Nanak Chand Public Witness 7, who is cousin of Public Witness 2, is having a milk dairy business at premises No.T-5311 & 5335 on the main road while the houses of Public Witness 2 and of the appellants are located in a lane and those houses are not visible from the spot where allegedly the murder of Ram Narain had taken place and that is the spot near the premises of Nanak Chand. The story of prosecution proceeds that about 6 Pm on that very day the appellants had come out of their house after they were informed about the morning incident by Smt.Sheila Devi and they had started hurling abuses at Vidyawati and her husband Ram Narain. Nanak Chand and some other residents of the locality are stated to have intervened and persuaded the appellants to go back to their house.
(3) It is then alleged that on the same day at about 7 P.M. the two appellants came out of their house while Shyam Sunder gave an exhortation uttering the words "Raju Pakar Ram Narain Ko, Aaj Iska Kam Tamam Kar Dein" meaning thereby asking Raju to catch hold of Ram Narain, whose life would be put to end then and there. Shyam Sunder is stated to have been armed with a dagger at that time. On Raj Kumar-appellant catching hold of Ram Narain from the front, Shyam Sunder-appellant is stated to have stabbed twice Ram Narain on his back. Ram Narain had fallen on the ground while bleeding from his wounds and the appellants had made their escape from the place of occurrence. Nanak Chand and Smt.Vidhyawati had taken Ram Narain to Ganga Ram Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter of Janak Raj Public Witness 14, who is the real son of Nanak Chand. Dr.J.P.N.Gupta, who was working in Ganga Ram Hospital at that time, had prepared the Mlc Ex.PW13/A at 7.35 Pm and had mentioned that Ram Narain had been brought by Nanak Chand and others with alleged stabbing by a knife ten minutes back after a quarrel and on examination of Ram Narain he found him comatose and gasping and pulse not palpable, blood pressure not recordable and he found following two injuries:
(1)incised wound 3" horizontal near 10th theraec vertibra over paravertibral area deep; (2) incised wound 1-1/2" over paravertibral region to the left near 12th theraec vertibra.
He tried resuscitation for some minutes and then declared Ram Narain dead at about 7.50PM.
(4) Si K.Lal Public Witness 8 on that day was posted in Police Control Room (for short 'PCR') and at 8.02 Pm he had received information from one Shri Malhotra that some persons have been injured in a dispute in house No.70, Block 8A in Western Extension Area which was recorded at D.D.No.180 of Pcr and he had forwarded the information to Police Station Karol Bagh. It was recorded at Daily Diary No.15A, copy of which is Ex.PW3/E in Police Station Karol Bagh. It has been mentioned that Shri Malhotra had given the information from his telephone No.5711372, copy of this report is stated to have been given to Constable Balbir Singh for handing over the same to Si Lakhmi Chand Public Witness 15, who is stated to have already proceeded to the spot as well as to the hospital. It appears that prior to this report at 7.50 Pm Dr.J.P.N.Gupta had rung up Police Station Karol Bagh and had given the information about Ram Narain being brought by Nanak Chand and who had already died in the hospital. This entry was made in Daily Diary No.14A, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. Copy of this Daily Diary report was given to Si Lakhmi Chand, who is stated to have proceeded to the spot accompanied by Constable Babu Ram.
(5) PW15 Lakhmi Chand had come to the hospital and after collecting the Mlc of Ram Narain he met Nanak Chand who was present in the hospital and proceeded to record his statement Ex.PW3/C on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded at the Police Station Karol Bagh at 9.10 PM. Ex.PW3/D is the copy of the F.I.R. which was received by the Metropolitan Magistrate of the area at 7.20 Am on August 14, 1986. Daily Diary No.19A which was to contain the substance of the F.I.R. admittedly did not contain either the names of the accused or of the eye witnesses.
(6) In the statement of Nanak Chand which is the foundation of the F.I.R. which is Ex.W3/C while narrating the facts of the case as mentioned by us above, it was further mentioned that Ram Narain was caught by the appellants on the road outside his house and then he was stabbed and he had mentioned that he had brought Ram Narain to the hospital in a three- wheeler scooter of his son Janak Raj. It was not mentioned in this statement that Vidyawati had also come to the hospital in the said scooter although it was recorded that Vidyawati and others have also witnessed the occurrence. Si Lakhmi Chand had not found Vidyawati at the hospital.
(7) The names of Public Witness 9 Babu Lal and Gopal Public Witness 13 as an eye witnesses do not find mention in the F.I.R. The further case of the prosecution is that Si Mohinder Singh Public Witness 16 had arrested the appellant-Shyam Sunder on August 14, 1986, at about 9 P.M. when he was lying on a cot at Papa Ki Dairy, Ganda Nalla, Punjabi Bagh and he had made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept the weapon of offence under the pillow which was reduced into writing which is Ex.PW15/B and thereafter he had taken out the knife from underneath the pillow which was converted into sealed parcel and the said knife is Ex.P4.
(8) Unfortunately for the prosecution the said knife is not linked with the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased could be possible only by a double edged weapon and not by the weapon Ex.P4 which was single- edged weapon. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought home the offence to the appellants on the basis of the ocular direct evidence of the said eye-witness Public Witness 2 Vidyawati, Public Witness 7 Nanak Chand, Public Witness 9 Babu Lal and Public Witness 13 Gopal, all relations of the deceased.
(9) The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that none of these persons were actually the eye-witnesses and in this case the recording of the F.I.R. has been delayed to concoct a false story to implicate the appellants inasmuch as the F.I.R. is purported to have been recorded on August 13, 1986 and at 9.10 Pm i.e. within two hours or so of the occurrence but the special report Along with copy of the F.I.R. Ex.PW3/D was received by the Metropolitan Magistrate on August 14, 1986, at about 7 A.M. and in the substance recorded in Daily Diary No.19A pertaining to the recording of the present F.I.R. neither the names of the eye-witnesses nor the names of the culprits have been incorporated which was the requirement of the law. He has also pointed out that the inquest proceedings pertaining to the dead body were also deliberately delayed inasmuch as the inquest proceedings were done by the Investigating Officer Mohinder Singh on the following day and not on the night of the occurrence itself and the inquest papers were received in the mortuary on at 11 A.M. on August 14, 1986.
(10) So, it is urged that there was ample time gained by the Investigating Officer to concoct this F.I.R. when it was in all probability not known to the Investigating Officer as to who had witnessed the occurrence and our attention has been also drawn to the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex.PW16/D and also to the sketch map prepared later on which show that the occurrence had not taken place just outside the house of the deceased but had taken place on the main road and from the place of occurrence the house of the deceased was not even visible and in sketch Ex.PW16/D Gopal is not shown as eye-witness. He has also pointed out various material discrepancies appearing in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which according to him, would lead to inference that in fact they were not the eye-witnses of the occurrence.
(11) The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that it is true that eye witnesses are relations of the deceased but has urged that alone is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version and if the statements of the said witnesses are examined closely and in detail it would be clear that they are most truthful witnesses and had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in this crime. He has urged that there is no reason for them to have allowed the real culprits to go scot free and unnecessarily falsely implicate the appellants. He has urged that Shyam Sunder-appellant appears to be a very clever person and in order to mislead the investigating agency he has substituted the weapon of offence and no blame can be attached to the prosecution for such substitution of the weapon of offence on the part of the culprit. He has urged that the Additional Sessions Judge was right in placing implicit reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses and even if Babu Lal and Gopal are not believed to have witnessed the occurrence, there is no reason not to believe Nanak Chand and Vidyawati because they were the persons who had taken the deceased to the hospital.
(12) We have gone through the statements of all the witnesses. There are certain very material discrepancies which have appeared in the statements of Vidyawati and Nanak Chand. Vidyawati was not present in the hospital at the time the Investigating Officer is stated to have reached the hospital. The Investigating Officer had not met Vidyawati at the hospital. According to him, he met only Nanak Chand and recorded his statement which is the basis of the F.I.R. Vidyawati has stated that she had gone to the hospital with Nanak Chand when her husband was taken to the hospital and after her husband had been admitted in the hospital she came back to her house and she did not know at that time whether her husband had succumbed to his injuries or not. It is only Nanak Chand who came to her house from the hospital who informed her that her husband had died and thereafter she again went to the hospital. Conduct of Public Witness 1 in this respect does not appear to be normal one. Her husband was in a very serious condition and was got admitted in hospital and he had died in the hospital soon after at 7.50 P.M.. It is not possible to believe that she would go back to her house without first knowing about the condition of her husband in the hospital. On the other hand, Nanak Chand had deposed that he alone had come back from the hospital after getting the deceased admitted and when he met Vidyawati at the house, it is Vidyawati who told him that Ram Narain had died. If that is the correct state of affairs, it is not understood how Nanak Chand could have given any statement to the police in the hospital which was the basis of the F.I.R. because according to him he had come back from the hospital and then he gave the statement to the police.
(13) Both Nanak Chand and Vidyawati state that their clothes had become blood stained when they helped the deceased in taking him to the hospital in a three- wheeler scooter and they had shown their blood stained clothes to the police but the Investigating Officer had deposed that it had never come to his notice that clothes of Nanak Chand and Vidyavati had become blood stained. No such clothes had been admittedly taken into possession by the police. There are some discrepancies as to in what manner deceased was caught by Raj Kumar. Vidyawati deposed in court that Raj Kumar had caught the deceased from collar from the front side when Shyam Sunder stabbed the deceased twice on his back whereas Nanak Chand deposed that Raj Kumar grappled with the deceased and had caught hold of him by putting his right arm around the deceased and when he was parallel to the deceased that Shyam Sunder stabbed the deceased in the back. Nanak Chand had gone to the extent of deposing that Ex.P4 is the same knife with which Shyam Sunder had stabbed the deceased.
(14) It is true that in the M.L.C. prepared at the hospital it is duly recorded that Nanak Chand had brought the deceased but the question is whether Nanak Chand was the eye-witness of the occurrence. The deceased had been brought to the hospital in a three- wheeler scooter of Nanak Chand's son. Nanak Chand's son had not witnessed the occurrence. It is not recorded in the said M.L.C. that deceased had been stabbed by Shyam Sunder, rather the names of the appellants have not been disclosed to the doctor.
(15) At one point of time Nanak Chand had stated in the cross-examination that when he returned to the hospital later on after learning about the death of the deceased from Vidyawati that he got his name entered in the M.L.C. from the doctor as the person who brought him to the hospital. This statement of Nanak Chand is really difficult to understand, either the M.L.C. was not prepared at the time purported to have been mentioned in the M.L.C. or the name of the person who had brought the deceased to the hospital had been kept blank to be inserted later on and only in such a situation it could be said that Nanak Chand got his name inserted in that M.L.C. later on.
(16) The doctor, who had prepared the M.L.C., had given a telephonic message to the police also. So, it cannot be said that he had inserted the name of Nanak Chand at any later point of time. Of course, he did not know Nanak Chand and Nanak Chand's son admittedly had brought the deceased to the hospital. It could be that the three-wheeler driver Nanak Chand's son in order to not being involved as a witness in the case supplied the name of his father as the person who got admitted the deceased in the hospital when obviously he did not know the name of the culprits who had stabbed the deceased.
(17) Nanak Chand has deposed that Shyam Sunder- appellant was arrested at 1 A.M. whereas the Investigating Officer had stated that he was arrested at 5 P.M. It is evident that the knife which had been got recovered by the police was not the weapon with which the injuries had been inflicted on the deceased and that would lead to the only one inference that this knife had been planted by the Investigating Officer and this inference becomes stronger when we find material discrepancy appearing in the statement of Nanak Chand and the Investigating Officer with regard to the time of arrest of Shyam Sunder.
(18) In the present case, as already narrated above, the police has not followed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Delhi Police Rules in regard to prompt recording of the F.I.R. The substance of the F.I.R. which should include the names of the accused and the names of the eye-witnesses was admittedly not recorded in the Daily Diary at the time F.I.R. purported to have been recorded. The special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate was not sent promptly and reached him after much delay. The inquest proceedings were not carried out by the Investigating Officer promptly and were held over for the next day. No explanations have been given by the prosecution for all these lapses.
(19) In Surinder Kumar & Others Vs State, , the recording of the F.I.R. was found to be deliberately delayed and there were no mention of the substance containing the names of the accused and the names of the eye-witnesses in the Daily Diary and there was also delay in sending the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and coupled with other facts appearing in that case the court doubted the prosecution case holding that in all probability the case has been brought in existence after due deliberation between the alleged eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer.
(20) In Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur Vs State of Karnataka, 1993(3) Crimes 411, it was found that eye- witnesses were not named in the F.I.R. It was held that it was quite doubtful that said persons could have witnessed the occurrence when they belatedly become eye-witnesses.
(21) In Lala Ram & Another Vs State, 1989 Cri. L.J. 572, there was again non-compliance with the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not recording the substance of the F.I.R. containing the names of the accused and names of the eye-witnesses and also non-compliance of Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules which require prompt sending of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case the court came to the conclusion that perhaps the persons who claimed to be eye-witnesses were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
(22) In Daula & Others Vs State of Haryana, 1987 (1) C.L.R. 89, it was found that the weapon of offence allegedly used in the commission of murder of deceased which claimed to have been recovered by the police in persuance of disclosure statement of accused was opined by the medical expert as not the weapon which could have been used for causing fatal injuries and eye- witnesses in that case were mere relations of the deceased. The court found the case of the prosecution to be doubtful.
(23) Reference may be also given to Balwant Singh Vs State, 1976 C.L.R. (Delhi) 41, wherein again the emphasis was laid on compliance of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require the substance of the Fir to be recorded in Daily Diary and Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules Volume Iii which require the sending of the special report promptly to the higher authorities including Illaqa Magistrate and to the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require preparation of the inquest report promptly and for sending of the dead body Along with the inquest papers to the doctor for post-mortem without any delay. In the said case the court came to the conclusion because these provisions have not been complied with that in all probility the F.I.R. was ante timed by the police for introducing false eye-witnesses.
(24) In the present case there are glaring features which clearly point out to the fact that in all probabilities the Fir was ante timed. All the safeguards incorporated in the provisions of law mentioned above and emphasized in various judgments have been given a go-by in the present case. Public Witness 14 Janak Raj s/o Nanak Chand who had taken the deceased to the hospital does not say in court that anyone else had accompanied him to the hospital. He rules out the possibility of Nanak Chand and Vidyawati accompanying him to the hospital. Si Mahinder Singh Public Witness 16, the main Investigating Officer of this case, deposed that he had recorded statements of the three eye-witnesses, namely, Public Witness 2 Vidyawati, Public Witness 9 Babu Lal and Public Witness 11 Gopal Kishan at the spot between 9 Pm to 11.30 PM. Public Witness 15 Si Laxmi Chand who claims to have recorded the statement of Nanak Chand at the hospital which is the basis of the Fir stated that he had not met Vidyawati at the hospital nor Nanak Chand had told him about the presence of Vidyawati in the hospital and that he had come to the place of occurrence ahead of the Investigating Officer and was present at the place of occurrence from 9 Pm onward and Si Mahinder Singh or he himself had not recorded statements of Vidyawati, Babu Lal and Gopal Kishan during that time.
(25) The presence of Gopal Kishan at the time of alleged occurrence in the morning was also doubtful because the occurrence had taken place at a time when Gopal Kishan admittedly should have been attending the school. DW1, an official from Akali Baba Phoola Singh Khala Senior Secondary School, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, had brought the school record and stated that Gopal attended the school on August 13, 1986 at 7 Am and remained there till 12.30 Pm as his attendance is recorded in the morning shift as well as in the afternoon shift. The suggestion given to the witness that Gopal after marking his presence in the school had returned at 8 Am was obviously not accepted by the witness because it was against the record maintained by the school. Gopal Kishan is not named as an eye- witness in the Fir though the said Fir appears to have been ante timed and appears to have been not recorded at the time it purports to have been recorded. Gopal Kishan also contradicts his mother by stating that it was his mother who on return from the hospital informed that his father had died whereas Vidyawati has deposed that it was Nanak Chand who on return from the hospital informed her at the house that her husband had died. Gopal Kishan had also deposed that police had arrived at the place of occurrence within half an hour of the incident and at that time his mother was present in the house and not in the hospital. If that is so, the story built up by the prosecution that police had met Nanak Chand in the hospital and recorded his statement which is the basis of Fir, after the information was received from the hospital regarding Ram Narain being brought to the hospital and being declared dead, falls to the ground because according to Gopal Kishan police had arrived at the spot within half an hour of the incident meaning thereby that even before the statement of Nanak Chand was recorded in the hospital.
(26) It is significant to mention that one Shri Malhotra had given a telephone call to Police Control Room at about 8 Pm that a number of persons had sustained injuries in a quarrel at house No.70, Block 8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh. This report was recorded in Daily Diary No.180 on August 13, 1986, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and the Police Control Room had communicated this information to the Police Station Karol Bagh and the same was recorded in Daily Diary No.15A at 8.05 P.M., copy of which is Ex.PW3/B. Even the telephone number of said Shri Malhotra is recorded in this daily diary report which is 5711372. Earlier to this report, a report had been received from the hospital recorded at 7.50 Pm in Daily Diary, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, Si Laxmi Chand had been deputed to inquire into the matter. The place of occurrence was known to the police from these two reports and it is inconceivable that the police would not have taken steps to immediately reached the place of occurrence besides taking steps at the hospital in order to find out about the presence of any eye-witnesses either at the hospital or at the place of occurrence. Nothing has come on the record to reveal as to whether the Investigating Officer had contacted the said Malhotra or not and whether the said Malhotra was an eye-witness of the occurrence or not.
(27) As far as Babu Lal is concerned, his name does not figure as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. and he was not resident of the same area. He claims to have come to the spot at about 6 Pm and he stated that he had stayed over-night in the house of Ram Narain after the occurrence whereas Nanak Chand had stated that in fact this witness stayed over-night at his house. If we examine the statements of these eye-witnesses closely, there appears discrepancy as to the place where the occurrence took place. The site plan clearly indicates that the occurrence had taken place on the main road in front of house of Nanak Chand opposite to house No.94. House of deceased has not been shown in the plan but it appears from the evidence that the house of deceased is located in a side lane and from the spot where deceased is shown to have been stabbed the said house of deceased is not visible. In the siteplan at point 'B' on the main road is shown a cot and the prosecution case is that Ram Narain and his wife were sitting on that cot at some point of time when the assailants had come earlier at about 6 Pm but Vidyawati in her testimony had referred to a cot just in front of her house and the cot at mark 'B' cannot be considered to be in front of the house of deceased. This cot marked 'B' has been shown as a convenient place from where Vidyawati is stated to have witnessed the stabbing of her husband. In all probabilities it was not possible that either Vidyawati or her husband would be sitting on a cot which is not in front of their house and was quite at a distance from the house of the deceased. In the sketch Ex.PW16/A which was prepared by the Investigating Officer soon after the recording of the Fir, no cot is shown at the point where position of Vidyawati as eye-witness has been indicated. In this siteplan Gopal Kishan has not been shown as an eye-witness. The deceased's house number was Block 8A/T-5316, Wester Extension Area, Karol Bagh. If we keep in view the said sketch Ex.PW16/A, the house of deceased could not be anywhere near the spot where allegedly Vidyawati was standing when occurrence took place in front of the house of Nanak Chand. So, Vidyawati could not have been an eye-witness to the occurrence and must have come to the spot soon after the occurrence. The place where the deceased was stabbed allegedly was quite at a distance from his house.
(28) Neither Vidyawati nor Gopal Kishan deposed that when the assailants came in front of house of deceased, the deceased ran away and was pursued by the assailants. No blood admittedly was found in front of the house of the deceased. So, the occurrence obviously had not taken place in front of the house of the deceased so that Vidyawati and her son could be deemed to be natural witnesses. Nanak Chand who could be deemed to be natural witness because occurrence took place in front of his house and his name is mentioned as the person who brought the deceased to the hospital but unfortunately it becomes difficult to place reliance on his testimony which is not truthful on many counts. We have already noted material contradictions appearing in his testimony. He is instrumental in getting planted the weapon of offence on appellant- Shyam Sunder which was not linked with the murder of Ram Narain and he, according to his own version, had not known in the hospital about the demise of Ram Narain and had come back to his place and was informed about demise of Ram Narain by Vidyawati and claims to have again gone back to the hospital and had got inserted his name in the M.L.C. Prosecution case is doubtful in view of the material discrepancies appearing in the statements of the eye-witnesses coupled with the fact that all safeguards provided in the statute having been violated by the investigating agency and the Investigating Officer also having almost planted the weapon of offence which was not linked with the murder of Ram Narain as Investigating Officer was ignorant at that time as to whether a double-edged or single-edged weapon had been used till to his shock it came out in the evidence that in fact the injuries on the body of the deceased could not have been possible except with a double-edged weapon. All these circumstances would create ample doubts with regard to the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution that these two appellants were involved in the murder of Ram Narain.
(29) There is conflict in the evidence of the prosecution as to the time of arrest of Shyam Sunder. An effort was also made to show that there was blood on the clothes of Shyam Sunder when he was arrested but the Cfsl reports Exs.PA & Pb clearly indicated that no blood was found on the clothes of appellant-Shyam Sunder. It is not disputed that there was enmity between the appellants on the one side and deceased Ram Narain and his family members on the other side on the question of some property. So, the possibility of Vidyawati and her close relations, namely, Nanak Chand, Babu Lal and son Gopal Kishan having strong suspicion against the appellants about the murder of their near and dear one cannot be over ruled and may be due to that strong suspicion they thought of and planned for involving the appellants in this case when in all probility they were not aware of the actual assailants of Ram Narain.
(30) It is true that Vidyawati and her son Gopal Kishan would be the last person to allow the real culprits of Ram Narain to escape and falsely implicate only the appellants with whom they were having animosity but in the present case it appears that they were not aware of the actual assailants and in all probaility had not witnessed the occurrence and because of enmity with the appellants they might have strong suspicion that perhaps the appellants had perpetrated this ghastly murder of Ram Narain and thus, they might have become pliable instruments in the hands of the Investigating Officers for showing themselves as eye- witnesses to the murder of Ram Narain.
(31) Keeping in view the above discussion, we conclude that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubts that appellants have committed this crime.
(32) We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge and acquit the appellants of the charges and direct that they be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.