JUDGMENT
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. This judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 961-DB of 2004, as well as, and Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2006, as the same have arisen out of the same impugned judgment.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2002 decided on 20.11.2004. By the impugned judgment the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar has been held guilty of having intentionally committed the murder of Gurnam Singh punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order passed on 22.11.2004, the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The prosecution version is based on the complaint made by Balwinder Singh PW 15 i.e. the son of the deceased Gurnam Singh on 4.4.2002 to ASI Raj Kumar PW 17. According to the complaint, Balwinder Singh as also his three other brothers were living as a joint family with their father Gurnam Singh. The entire family is stated to be engaged in agriculture. At their farm, they are stated to have sown gram crop in two killas. The complainant’s father Gurnam Singh used to go to the farm as a matter of routine at about 6:00 P.M. every day and used to remain there till about 10:00 P.M. so as to keep a watch on the gram crop grown by them on their farm. On the fateful day i.e. 3.4.2002 Gurnam Singh had gone to the farm at about 6.30 P.M. On the following morning i.e. on 4.4.2002, the family realized that Gurnam Singh had not returned from the farm. Accordingly, the complainant and his “tau” (father’s elder brother) Shiv Ram, went to the farm to search for Gurnam Singh. At the farm, they found the body of Gurnam Singh lying under the sugarcane leaves. There was a plastic rope around the neck of Gurnam Singh. The shoes of Gurnam Singh were also lying by his side. According to the complainant Balwinder Singh PW 15, some unknown persons had strangulated him and caused his death. On the basis of the complaint of Balwinder Singh PW 15, a First Information Report bearing No. 64 was registered at Police Station Barara on 4.4.2002 at about 11.05 A.M. Special Report thereof was received by the concerned magistrate at 3.25 P.M on the same day.
4. ASI Raj Kumar PW 17 having recorded the complaint of Balwinder Singh PW 15, went to the place of occurrence and summoned a photographer and took photographs of the deceased Gurnam Singh at the place of occurrence. He then prepared parcels of the rope found around the neck of the deceased Gurnam Singh, the blood stained sugarcane leaves a “khes” and broken bangles recovered from the spot. He recorded the statements of those present at the place of occurrence including Surjit and Jagir. He then prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence with marginal notes as well as the inquest report of the dead body of Gurnam Singh. He then sent the dead body of Gurnam Singh for post mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Ambala. During the course of investigation, ASI Raj Kumar PW 17 arrested all the four accused Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri. On 5.4.2002 i.e. on the date of arrest of Ashgiri a bangle was got removed from the arm of the accused Ashgiri and was put in a sealed parcel. On interrogation, Gulab Khan suffered a disclosure statement Exhibit PD. Likewise separate disclosure statements of accused Naresh Kumar Exhibit PDD and Naushad Ali Exhibit PEE were recorded. Despite the disclosure statements Exhibits PD, PDD and PEE no recovery could be made. On further interrogation on 7.4.2002, the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar made a further disclosure statement Exhibit PC wherein he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wires stolen by him, which the deceased Gurnam Singh had found in his possession, i.e. in wheat crop grown near the “kotha” of his tubewell. Similar separate disclosure statements were made by Gulab Khan and Naushad Ali wherein they acknowledged that they had stolen wires along with the co-accused Naresh Kumar and had kept the same in the “kotha” of the tubewell of Naresh Kumar. It was pointed out that after the deceased Gurnam Singh had seen the stolen wires at the “kotha” the same were moved from there and hidden in the wheat crop nearby. On completion of investigation, a challan was presented in he Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Ambala. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala, vide his order dated 24.7.2002, concluded that a prima facie case was made out against the accused under Section 302/149, 404 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session , the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala by his said order dated 24.7.2002, committed the case to the Court of Session as against the accused Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan and Ashgiri. The accused Naushad Ali was found to be juvenile on the day of the commission of the crime, accordingly, a separate challan was presented against him in the Juvenile Court, Ambala. On 5.12.2002, the Additional Sessions Judge,Ambala charged the accused appellant Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri for having committed the murder of Gurnam Singh by strangulating him while he was present in his fields to guard the gram crop sown by him punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Since all the accused had constituted an unlawful assembly, and in furtherance of their common object, had caused the death of Gurnam Singh, they were also charged for having committed the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused were then confronted with the charges framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is being summarized hereunder. Labh Singh was examined first of all as PW 1. According to the statement of Labh Singh PW 1, the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had visited him on 4.4.2002 and had told him that he had committed the murder of Gurnam Singh. He also stated that five persons in all were associated in the commission of the murder of Gurnam Singh. According to Labh Singh PW 1 the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar disclosed the names of others as Naushad Ali, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri. According to Labh Singh PW 1 the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had told him that he had murdered Gurnam Singh on account of the fact that he had seen the wires which he (accused/appellant Naresh Kumar) had stolen along with Ram Chander, Gulab Khan and Naushad Ali, and had thereafter hidden at the (accused/appellant Naresh’s) “kotha” of his tubewell. He also stated that at the time when Gurnam Singh had discovered the stolen wires in his possession, Ram Chander and Naushad Ali his two accomplices ( in the theft of the wires) were with him. He along with the other accused had entered into a conspiracy to kill Gurnam Singh so that he could not tell anyone of having seen the stolen wires found in their possession. According to the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar also stated that they had committed the murder of Gurnam Singh at about 9.00 P.M. while he was sitting in his field, by strangulating him with a rope. At the time of his strangulation, the accused Salma had allegedly caught hold of his right arm, whereas, his coaccused Ashgiri had allegedly caught hold of his left arm, and that Gulab had caught hold of his right leg, whereas his co-accused Naushad Ali had caught hold of his left leg. In his statement Labh Singh PW 1 stated that the accused/appellant stated that he had continued to pull the rope till Gurnam Singh had died. On account of the fact that PW 1 Labh Singh was the Sarpanch of the village, the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar requested him to produce him (Naresh Kumar) as also the other co-accused before the police. The accused/appellant Naresh Kumar, had accordingly, gone away and returned with the remaining four persons named by him. Labh Singh PW 1 then claims to have visited the place of occurrence and narrated the entire facts to SI Jai Ram who was present at the place of occurrence. The statement of Surjit Singh was recorded as PW 2. His statement merely pertains to the recovery of various articles from the place of occurrence which were made into parcels and sealed by the police personnel. The prosecution then produced HC Jagat Singh as PW 3. His statement pertains to the disclosure statement made by Gulab Khan (Exhibit PB), Naresh Kumar (Exhibit PC) and Naushad Ali (Exhibit PD). He also asserted that no recoveries were made in pursuance of the disclosure statements, referred to above. Constable Sukhdev Raj was examined as PW 4. He had taken a parcel containing the viscera of the dead body of Gurnam Singh and delivered the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Karnal. The statement of HC Om Parkash was recorded as PW 5. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Exhibit PE. The statement of Constable Partap Singh was recorded as PW 6. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Exhibit PF relating to his having taken certain parcels to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban.Constable Partap Singh PW 6 also asserted that the aforesaid parcels were not accepted by the said Forensic Science Laboratory on account of the fact that the seals thereon were not intact. Jagdish Singh was then produced by the prosecution as PW 7. His statement reveals that the dead body of Gurnam Singh was recovered from his field. He is stated to have identified the dead body of Gurnam Singh. He also stated that the police had taken into possession certain articles lying near the dead body of the deceased Gurnam Singh. The prosecution then examined Prem Singh as PW 8. While the statement of Prem Singh PW 8 was being recorded, he was declared hostile as he had resiled from the statement allegedly made by him to the police in connection with the stolen wires lying in the “kotha” of the tubewell. Ashok Kumar was examined as PW 9. His statement was formal in nature inasmuch as he produced the file pertaining to FIR No. 53 dated 16.3.2002, registered at police Station Barara recorded under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the trial being conducted against the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar on account of the stolen wires, referred to hereinabove. The statement of Dr.P.K.Nigam was recorded as PW 10. Dr.P.K.Nigam PW 10 deposed that he along with Dr.Satish, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,Ambala Cantt had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurnam Singh on 4.4.2002. As per the post mortem report, the body of Gurnam Singh bore the following injuries:
a bruise 24 cm x 2cmx 2cm present on upper part of neck extending from below the angle of mandible on the left side across the anterior aspect of neck upto below the mastoid process on the right side. Sub-cutanious ecchymosis was present. Multiple small irregular abrasions were present in the sub mandibular region. Dark red clotted blood was present.
According to the opinion of Dr.P.K.Nigam-PW 10 and Dr.Satish, the cause of death of Gurnam Singh was asphyxia. The statement of Vinod Kumar was recorded as PW 11 who had taken the photographs at the place of occurrence on 4.4.2002. He placed on record photographs Exhibits P1 to P5 as well as their negatives Exhibits P6 to P10. Constable Dharamvir was examined as PW 12. He stated that he delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate at about 2:00 P.M. and came back to the police station at about 7:00 P.M. Pawan Kumar Patwari was produced by the prosecution as PW 13. He had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence along with the marginal notes thereof. HC Bhim Singh was examined as PW 14. His statement pertains to the recording of the disclosure statements of Gulab Khan Exhibit PB, by Naresh Kumar Exhibit PC and by Naushad Ali Exhibit PD. In his cross-examination he asserted that no recovery could be made on the basis of the disclosure statements referred to hereinabove. The statement of the complainant Balwinder Singh was recorded as PW 15. He reiterated the factual position noticed by him when he had made his complaint on 4.4.2002. Additionally he stated that the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had taken Rs. 30,000/- from the deceased Gurnam Singh and given the same to accused Ashgiri for being spent on the marriage of the accused Salma. Despite the fact that the deceased Gurnam Singh had repeatedly asked for the return of the money loaned by him, the amount was not returned by Ashgiri, instead, according to Balwinder Singh PW 15, the accused threatened Gurnam Singh that if he demanded the money he would be eliminated. It was, therefore, suggested that the accused Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri joined hands to commit the murder of Gurnam Singh on account of the aforesaid debt. The statement of Dr. Satish, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt was recorded as PW 16. He had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurnam Singh along with Dr.P.K.Nigam. He also affirmed that the death of Gurnam Singh could have been caused due to asphyxia on account of strangulation. During the course of his cross examination Dr.Satish PW 16 acknowledged that it was correct that semen was present on the underwear of Gurnam Singh and it was possible that he had intercourse with a woman half an hour before his death. The statement of ASI Raj Kumar i.e. the Investigating Officer of the case was recorded as PW 17. He also affirmed having conducted the investigation for the murder of Gurnam Singh, as per the details, referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. The statement of Constable Subhash Chand was recorded as PW 18. He asserted that he was deputed to the Civil Hospital,Ambala Cantt so as to require the concerned doctor to conduct the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurnam Singh. The prosecution last of all produced S.I. Jai Ram as PW 19. He is stated to have partly conducted the investigation of the case, inasmuch as, he had recorded the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereupon the prosecution evidence was closed. The statements of the accused Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Insofar as the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is concerned, on the issue of his having made an extra judicial confession before Labh Singh PW 1, he inter alia stated as under:
It is correct. The story is concocted. I have never been to Labh Singh, nor made any extra judicial confession, as alleged, nor did I know, who had killed Gurnam Singh. There was no animosity between me and Gurnam Singh. Suggestion of his murder by me and Ashgiri etc/ is a negation of thinking. No wires were either stolen or recovered from me and this has been planted to rope me in falsely in this case, as murder of Gurnam Singh was a blind murder, which somebody may have committed on account of his illicit relations with some woman, as is evident from the semen on his under-wear and the untied string of his under wear and “Dhoti” at the spot.
6. On the specific question relating to his having stolen wires which were seen by the deceased Gurnam Singh (which constituted the motive for the commission of the crime), he stated as under:
It is incorrect. No wires were either stolen, nor recovered from any tubewell “kotha” as alleged. The story is concocted by the police for falsely implicating me.
7. Accused/appellant Naresh Kumar in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also asserted that no independent witness had deposed against him. Insofar as Labh Singh PW 1 is concerned, he contested the reliability of his statement on account of the fact that he is a Sarpanch and is siding with the party of the complainant for votes. He further asserted that Labh Singh PW 1 had lied during the course of his cross-examination. All the other accused while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while denying the fact that they were not aware of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar having made an extra judicial confession to Labh Singh PW 1 further stated that they had been falsely implicated and denied having made any extra judicial confession. In their defence the accused/appellant produced Ravinder Kumar Patwari Halqa Adhoya as DW1. He produced the Khasra Girdawri Exhibit DX which did not reveal the sowing of gram crop on the piece of land depicted therein. After having recorded the statement of Ravinder Kumar DW1, on the statement made by the accused, their defence evidence was closed.
8. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala delivered the judgment in Sessions case No. 12 of 2002 on 20.12.2004. The accused/appellant Naresh Kumar was held guilty of the murder of Gurnam Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All the other accused namely, Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri were acquitted. After having heard the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar on the question of sentence, by a separate order dated 22.11.2004, the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
9. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala reveals that while convicting the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar, the sole testimony of Labh Singh PW 1 has been relied upon. According to the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 the accused/appellant had made an extra judicial confession narrating the motive for having committed the murder of Gurnam Singh, and had also acknowledged the fact that the murder of Gurnam Singh had been committed on the basis of the common intention entertained by all the accused namely, Naresh Kumar, Gulab Khan,Salma and Ashgiri. Having perused the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the view that there is no other evidence besides the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 linking the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar to the murder of Gurnam Singh. The other efforts, made at the hands of the prosecution, to connect the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar with the crime proved futile, inasmuch as, the disclosure statements allegedly made by accused/appellant Naresh Kumar as also the other accused Gulab Khan and Naushad Ali did not lead to any recovery. The recovery of a broken bangle from the place of the occurrence which matched with the bangle of the co-accused Ashgiri (recovered from her arm at the time of her arrest) would also be inconsequential, insofar as the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is concerned, on account of the fact, that all the remaining three accused namely Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala while deciding Sessions case No. 12 of 2002 on 20.11.2004. It would, therefore, not be incorrect to conclude that the conviction of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar was based on the single testimony of Labh Singh PW 1. During the course of his submissions, learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar,therefore, made all out erfforts to discredit the statement of Labh Singh PW 1. The first and foremost contention at the hands of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant would have never required Labh Singh PW 1 to produce him before the police. In this behalf, it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the brother of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar namely, Parkash Chand was the President of the Indian National Lok Dal of Halqa Mullana in which, village Malikpur as well as village Dohiya Majra are located, and as such, rather than requiring Labh Singh PW 1 to produce him before the police, the accused/appellant would have chosen his own brother at that juncture, specially because the Indian National Lok Dal was then in power in the State of Haryana. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that Labh Singh PW 1 was associated with the Congress party and that he had sided with the Congress party during the course of elections. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that if accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had actually gone to Labh Singh PW 1 requiring him to produce him before the police his arrest at the hands of the police would have been effected through Labh Singh PW 1. It is however, contended that Labh Singh PW 1 played no role whatsoever in the detention/arrest of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar. The fourth contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant is that there could have been no justification for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar to have acknowledged his having stolen the wires which were allegedly seen in his possession (by the deceased Gurnam Singh). In this behalf, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar that if the accused /appellant were factually in possession of the wires under reference, the same would have definitely been recovered by the police during the course of interrogation. In this behalf, pointed reference has also been invited to the fact that in spite of the fact that disclosure statements were made by three of the accused, no recovery was made thereupon of the allegedly stolen wires. The fifth contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is that the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 is false and incorrect. In order to substantiate this contention, reference has been made to the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 wherein he asserted that after the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had confessed having committed the murder of Gurnam Singh, he had gone to the place of occurrence and disclosed the factual position to SI Jai Ram PW 19. The veracity of the aforesaid disclosure statement is contested by the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar on the basis of the statement made by the Investigating officer ASI Raj Kumar PW 17 wherein he stated that when he had gone to the place of occurrence he had met a number of persons including Surjit and Jagir. It is pointed out that the statements of Surjit and Jagir recorded by ASI Raj Kumr PW 17 at the place of occurrence had not mentioned the presence of Labh Singh. It is, therefore, sought to be concluded that the prosecution “introduced” Labh Singh PW 1 a confident of the complainant party, in the absence of any other evidence. Additionally, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar had been acquitted from the acquisition of having committed theft of the stolen wires inasmuch as, the judgment of the trial Court depicting the aforesaid factual position was placed on the record of the instant appeal through Criminal Misc. No. 44353 of 2006. Added to the aforesaid, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Naresh Kumar, that the entire version of the prosecution story is trumped up. In this behalf, reference has been made to the statement of the complainant Balwinder Singh PW 15 who while deposing in Court asserted that his father had been murdered by Naresh Kumar because he had taken a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from his father Gurnam Singh and given the same to the coaccused Ashgiri so as to be spent on the marriage of his daughter i.e. the coaccused Salma, and that, his father Gurnam Singh had been requesting the accused to return the aforesaid amount to him, whereupon, the accused threatened to murder him in case he repeated the said demand. It is pointed out that if the aforesaid version had been correct Balwinder Singh PW 15 while making his complaint to the police on 4.4.2002 i.e. on the following day of the occurrence, would have definitely mentioned the same. On the contrary, while recording his statement on 4.4.2002, he merely stated that some unknown person had committed the murder of his father Gurnam Singh. Insofar as the alleged motive, namely, the loan of Rs. 30,000/- taken by Ashgiri through the co-accused/appellant Naresh Kumar for the marriage of the co-accused Salma is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the trial Court itself. In this behalf, the trial Court recorded the following conclusion:
During his examination-in-chief, it was stated by PW 15 Balwinder Singh that when his father (Gurnam Singh) had repeatedly asked accused Ashgiri to return to Rs. 30,000/- that amount was not returned by her and the accused used to threat his father to murder him, in case the same was demanded by him (Gurnam Singh). During his cross-examination, PW 15 Balwinder Singh admitted that he had not got recorded in his statement Ex.PV or Ex.DA that the accused had threatened to kill his father, in case the aforesaid amount was demanded by him (Gunam Singh). All this shows that the statement of PW 15 Balwinder Singh, to the effect that the accused had threatened to kill his father, in case Rs. 30,000/-, which were given by Gurnam Singh (since deceased) to accused Ashgiri, at the time of marriage of her daughter accused Salma, were demanded by his father (Gurnam Singh), was an improvement and could not be believed. Thus, it could not be said to have been proved on the file that accused Gulab Khan, Ashgiri and Salma were having any motive to kill Gurnam Singh (since deceased).
10. Besides the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the accused/appellant states that there was a substantial delay in the registration of First Information Report. In this behalf, it is submitted that according to the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 the murder of the deceased Gurnam Singh was allegedly committed on 3.4.2002 at 9 P.M. Even though the deceased Gurnam Singh used to return back to his residence at about 10 P.M. none from the family of Gurnam Singh is stated to have come to know that he had returned to his residence even though the occurrence took place in summer months. And as such the absence of Gurnam Singh on the night of 3.4.2002 would have come to the notice of the family members on the same night. So far as the statement of the complainant Balwinder Singh PW 15 is concerned, he stated that he had recorded his complaint on 4.4.2002 at 10.45 A.M. whereas the Police Station is only at a distance of three kilometers towards the west of the place of the occurrence. It is also pointed out that the special report in respect of the aforesaid occurrence came to be signed by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.25 P.M. on 4.4.2002. The delay in reporting the occurrence in respect of the murder of deceased Gurnam Singh, according to the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar clearly reveals that the family of the deceased Gurnam Singh, as also the police authorities were clueless about the persons who were factually guilty of the commission of the murder of Gurnam Singh and that the improvements in the prosecution version came to be made by and by.
11. It is not necessary for us to repeat or reiterate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant. We are satisfied that each one of the submissions made by him so as to substantiate his contention that the testimony of Labh Singh PW 1 lacks credibility and it should not be taken into consideration for holding the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar guilty of the murder of Gurnam Singh deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, collectively for the reasons noticed in the foregoing paragraph, we are satisfied that the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 should not be taken into consideration while determining the guilt of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar. Since the prosecution version of the occurrence and the guilt of the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is entirely based on the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 and since the statement of Labh Singh PW 1 has been considered unreliable, we are of the view that we have no other alternative but to conclude that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges levelled against accused/appellant Naresh Kumar. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2004 and the order of sentence dated 22.11.2004 at the hands of the trial Court, are set aside and the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
12. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2006, filed by the complainant Balwinder Singh, against the acquittal of Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri, is also liable to be dismissed as there is no evidence, after the exclusion from consideration the statement of Labh Singh PW 1, for substantiating the prosecution story against the aforesaid accused Gulab Khan, Salma and Ashgiri.
13. The accused/appellant Naresh Kumar is accordingly ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.