Vijender Singh Malik, J.The three appeals brought by Ashok Kumar Pandey and others, named below, are directed against a common judgment dated 19.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana as also the order on sentence of the same date vide which the following sentence has been awarded to the appellants.

The prosecution that was initiated by way of FIR No. 159 dated 20.4.2002 registered at Police Station Division No. 5, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 307, 120-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act, is based on the following facts:

2. Bipan Chand Sharma, the complainant has been working as Chief Ticket Inspector, Railways and he has been the General Secretary in Uttar Railway Majdoor Union (URMU). His office is at Panchkuhian Road, New Delhi. He often used to visit his office at New Delhi. Lucknow branch of URMU is situated at Charbagh area. There was a dispute in the Lucknow branch about the post of Branch Secretary. Mr. R.C. Tiwari, who was working as Branch Secretary had retired and so, the post was lying vacant. As the complainant was overall General Secretary, so he had deputed Mr. J.P. Vajpayee to work as Branch Secretary at the Charbagh Lucknow branch of URMU. In this regard, the complainant had got issued a letter from General Manager, Delhi. However, this development did not go down well with H.N. Pandey, who is a foreman and Assistant Secretary of URMU. He wanted to be Branch Secretary. Ashok Pandey, who is the Vice President of the branch of URMU at Lucknow had been supporting him. H.N. Pandey and Ashok Pandey had come to the Delhi office of URMU 3 or 4 times with four more persons whom the complainant could recognize if they came in front of him. They used to pressurize the complainant to make H.N. Pandey, Branch Secretary and sometimes disputes arose in this regard.

3. On 19.4.2002, the complainant had come from Delhi to Ludhiana by Shatabadi. He went to the office of URMU which is near the reservation office. Ajaib Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Rajinder Sharma, Amrit Lal, the colleagues of the complainant were also sitting there. He remained in the said office for a short while and then he started for his house on a scooter. When he took a turn to the left from Jagraon bridge on the side of Mohalla Singh Pura, then one motorcycle and one scooter on which two boys each were sitting, started following him. The driver of the motorcycle was aged about 40-45 years with dark complexion and 5 - 6" as height. He was clean shaven. The person sitting behind him was aged 20-22 years of the height of 5 4" colour dark brown. He was having a pistol. The boys sitting on the scooter were clean shaven. The person sitting behind was having small mustaches and both were aged 20-22 years. The person sitting behind was having a pistol. The driver of the scooter was also having a pistol. It was about 9.00 PM when the complainant turned towards his residence at the gate of Railway Colony No. 9. In the meanwhile, the person sitting on the motorcycle fired at him and the said shot missed him. He had hit that person with his helmet. He again fired a shot. In the meanwhile, the person sitting on the pillion of the scooter started firing at him. In all, 6-7 shots were fired which caused him injuries on his thighs, shoulder and stomach. When the complainant ran inside the colony by opening the gate of the colony, the person on the motorcycle fired a shot from behind him which caused him injury at his back. In his statement, he claimed that he could recognize the assailants when they would come in front of him. He claimed that they had fired shots at him in conspiracy with H.N. Pandey and Ashok Pandey with the intention to kill him. The reason for this is stated that they all wanted H.N. Pandey as Branch Secretary of Lucknow branch of URMU by pressurizing him. His son Parsoon Sharma on hearing his noise came and got him admitted in Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.

4. Satinderpal Singh, ASI, Police Post Bus Stand, Ludhiana alongwith other police officials reached CMC, Ludhiana on receipt of Information that Bipan Chand Sharma, the complainant had been admitted there on account of receipt of injuries in gun-firing. He asked the doctor attending the complainant about fitness of the complainant to make statement. The doctor declared him unfit to make the statement. He could not find any other person present there who could tell about the occurrence.

5. In the evening of 20.4.2002, Satinderpal Singh, ASI again approached the doctor about fitness of the complainant to make statement. He was declared fit to make statement this time. His statement was recorded. Recommending registration of a case under sections 307, 120-B read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, he had sent the statement of the complainant to the Police Station, on which the FIR was recorded. Thereafter, Satinderpal Singh, ASI reached the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He recovered three empty shells of the cartridges from the spot and giving him the shape of parcel and sealing them with seal SPS took them into possession by way of a recovery memo. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He also took into possession one motorcycle lying near Gulmore Hotel under the provisions of section 102 Cr.P.C. Another motorcycle was recovered on the same day from near railway yard and was taken into possession under the same provision. Recovery memos were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded. On 21.4.2002, the file was received by Mukesh Kumar, SI for investigation. On that day, he alongwith other police officials went to Police Post Nathu Pura Barouri to verify the ownership of the motorcycle recovered in this case. Viney Kumar, the owner of the motorcycle was present there who told him that he had purchased the motorcycle through a finance company and the company had taken the motorcycle about which the case with the company was pending. Thereafter, Mukesh Kumar, SI went to the finance company where Mr. Vikas was found present. He told that the motorcycle was sold in Karol Bagh, Toni Motors, New Delhi (wrongly mentioned as Toni Bazar). Ashok Kumar, owner of Toni Motors met him there and from him, he came to know that the motorcycle recovered had been purchased by three persons who belonged to Jalandhar. He was having their addresses and photographs. Mukesh Kumar, SI recovered the photographs of those persons as well as obtained their addresses. He recorded statements of the persons he met. On 23.4.2002, he verified the addresses of the persons who purchased the motorcycle and found them to be fake. Then, he came to C.M.C. Ludhiana where the complainant was lying admitted. After seeing the photographs, he told that the photograph was of Jai Baksh who had fired at him. The complainant also told that Jai Baksh was working as a peon with the Principal of Loco at Lucknow. On 1.5.2002, Mukesh Kumar was present at Lucknow and he went to the office of Principal, Loco. There he came to know that Jai Baksh, who was working as peon there, had been absent from duty with effect from 15.4.2002. He took into possession the service record and appointment record of Jai Baksh from Surinder Partap Sharma, Head Clerk by way of recovery memo. Statement of Surinder Partap Sharma was recorded. Copy of appointment letter of Jai Baksh and certified copy of his service book were also taken into possession. Jagjit Singh, SI also partly investigated the case. The accused were formally arrested as they were granted anticipatory bail by this court.

6. On filing of the challan, it was duly committed to the court of Session. The accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 307 read with section 120-B IPC, 120-B IPC. The prosecution had examined 15 witnesses at the trial. A number of witnesses have been given up as unnecessary or having been won over by the accused. The prosecution could not examine the remaining witnesses despite number of opportunities and vide order dated 27.7.2012, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the prosecution evidence put to them in the shape of questions. They have claimed themselves to be falsely implicated and to have been innocent. They did not lead any evidence in their defence.

7. Hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused Tej Bahadur Singh guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 120-B IPC, whereas held accused Manjit Singh, Mohd. Ibrahim, Des Raj, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar Pandey, H.N. Pandey, Chakarpal Singh and Varinder Singh guilty for an offence punishable under sections 120-B, 307 read with section 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 19.9.2012. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given to the State as well as the convicts on the same date and the sentence, as detailed above, has been awarded to the convicts.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the above mentioned three appeals have been brought by the appellants.

9. I have heard Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, and Mr. R.S. Rai, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Gautam Dutt and Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocates, for the appellants, Mr. Amit Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State and Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhart Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. I have gone through the record carefully.

10. Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned senior counsel has submitted that the occurrence took place on 19.4.2002 at 9.00 PM, whereas the FIR has been lodged on the next day i.e. 20.4.2002 at 9.30 PM on the statement of Bipan Chand Sharma, the injured and the formal FIR came to have been recorded at 10.50 PM. According to him, the complainant is Chief Ticket Inspector with Northern Railways and simultaneously, he is occupying the position of General Secretary of URMU. According to him, the post of Branch Secretary of the Lucknow branch of URMU fell vacant on the retirement of Mr. R.C. Tiwari and the dispute was on the said post because H.N. Pandey is claimed to be eyeing the said post and Ashok Pandey was putting pressure on the complainant to appoint H.N. Pandey as Branch Secretary of Lucknow branch of URMU. He has further submitted that the complainant made a supplementary statement on 23.4.2002. According to him, the complainant does not specify in his statement on even 23.4.2002 as to who was on motorcycle and who fired. According to him, he did not name the assailants in his statement recorded on 20.4.2002 and names Tej Bahadur Singh and Varinder Singh as the persons who fired at him while appearing as a witness in the court. He appearing as PW-1 does not name the persons who were driving the motorcycles.

11. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the complainant appearing as PW-1 says that Tej Bahadur and Varinder Singh fired at him and Manohar Lal (PW-2) says that it was Tej Bahadur and Jai Baksh who had fired. According to him, there is no evidence to connect the appellants to the motorcycles about their having purchased them or having kept them. He drew my attention to the statement of Shyam Sunder Trehan (PW-10) who has stated that Jai Ram Singh and Ajay Kumar had purchased the motorcycles, whose photographs were pasted on the documents. In his cross-examination, he failed to identify the purchasers from the accused. According to him, there is no evidence that the motorcycles were brought from Delhi to Ludhiana by Mohd. Ibrahim and Des Raj. He has further submitted that even Ram Asre (PW-15) does not say anything in this regard.

12. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the complainant claims to have seen the assailants, but he did not name them on the day following the date of occurrence. Thereafter, he names them, but did not specify as to who was driving and who was firing the shots. According to him, in his statement made on 20.4.2002 (Ex. PA), he goes to the extent of describing the assailants as having mustaches. According to him, though, he was appearing in the witness box 4-1/2 years after the occurrence, yet it cannot be believed that he would be unable to distinguish between the motorcycle and the scooter. He has submitted that in Ex. PA, he has stated that two persons came on a motorcycle and two on a scooter, but while appearing as PW-1, he has stated that both the vehicles were motorcycles.

13. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that Manohar Lal (PW-2) claims that after the occurrence, C.B. Singh came there. According to him, he kept silent for 14 days about the occurrence and his excuse for not divulging the details of occurrence to the police or any one else is that he was afraid of those persons as they were criminals. According to him, as per his own statement and the statement of Bipan Chand Sharma, he had been visiting the injured, but did not name them. According to him, Manohar Lal (PW-2) is a chance witness as he was present at a nearby khokha (kiosk). According to him, at the very root of the occurrence, there is the post of Branch Secretary of Lucknow branch of URMU. According to him, the Branch Secretary is to be elected and not to be nominated by the complainant and, therefore, the entire foundation of the case is false.

14. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, learned senior counsel has referred the court to the entire evidence and has submitted that there is no evidence of conspiracy on the record against the accused.

15. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned senior counsel has highlighted the most important aspect to be that Manjit Singh, appellant is not even named by the complainant and he has been convicted.

16. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and no exception can be taken to the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

17. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhart Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant has submitted that evidence has come on the record to establish the motive on the part of the accused. According to him, people take their time to depose and so, fault cannot be found with Manohar Lal (PW-2) disclosing the details of the occurrence late. He has submitted that two motorcycles were purchased from Delhi and were brought in railway truck to Ludhiana. According to him, the receipts of the motorcycles are on the record. According to him, Jai Baksh and C.P. Singh were identified from the photographs. He has further submitted that Ashok Kumar is son-in-law of C.P. Singh who is working President of the union. He has further submitted that C.P. Singh is jija (brother-in-law) of Ashok Singh. According to him, the motorcycles were recovered lying abandoned by Ranbir Singh (PW-5). He has further submitted that no motive is attributed to Manohar Lal (PW-2) for making false statement. He has further submitted that Ram Asre, PW-15 is examined to prove that H.N. Pandey had booked the truck for Ludhiana. He has submitted that all these aspects have been dealt with by learned Additional Sessions Judge and he has rightly held the appellants guilty. To support his aforesaid contentions, learned senior counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the ratio of Rammi @ Rameshwar etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , Dilbag Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1999 (4) RCR (Cri) 16 and Abu Thakir and Others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, .

18. The evidence to prove the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC consists of the statements of the complainant Bipan Chand Sharma recorded as PW-1 and an eye-witness of the occurrence, named, Manohar Lal who appeared as PW-2. Apart from the statement of Bipan Chand Sharma on the charge u/s 120-B IPC, there are the statements of various witnesses, namely, Viney Kumar (PW-3), who was the previous owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1S-2587 from whom the said vehicle was taken away by the financer, Ranbir Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-5) who recovered the said motorcycle from back side of Railway Colony No. 5. Satinderpal Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-8), the part investigating officer of the case, Indervir Singh (PW-9) from whom a joint photograph of two persons was got clicked to be pasted on some papers of Toni Motors wherefrom the second hand motorcycles bearing registration No. DL-9SC-6145 and DL-ISM-2587 were purchased. Shyam Sunder Trehan (PW-10) is also one of the witnesses on the point. He is the person who was running an agency for sale of second hand motorcycles. Mukesh Kumar, Sub Inspector (PW-11) is also a witness on the point and thereafter there are the statements of Ashok Kumar, a salesman at Toni Motors and that of Ram Arse (PW-15), a junior engineer in transport department at Loko Charbagh, Lucknow wherefrom a truck of the railways bearing No. UP-32-Z-1191 was booked for transporting some railway material from Patiala, Ludhiana and New Delhi. The main charge in the case is for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC on which there are the statements of Bipan Chand Sharma (PW-1) and Manohar Lal (PW-2) besides the medical evidence.

19. It is a case where the medical evidence is not in dispute. Bipan Chand Sharma had suffered a number of gunshots on his body and it cannot be held in doubt that the acts of the assailants squarely attracted the provisions of section 307 IPC. This aspect is, moreover, not disputed by learned senior counsel for the appellants.

20. Manohar Lal (PW-2) is sought to be dismissed as a chance witness. His presence at the spot is claimed to be doubtful. It has come in his evidence that he was working as Chief Inspector of Tickets on the date of occurrence. According to him, he was on duty upto 6.00 PM. The occurrence took place at 9.00 PM or even thereafter and at that time, he claims himself to be sitting at a tea kiosk near Jagraon bridge. He has admitted that his house is on the other side of Jagraon bridge. His further admission is that Jagraon bridge is 1 Km. away from his house and the tea kiosk is on the other side of the Jagraon bridge.

21. Manohar Lal (PW-2) is not a labourer doing work in evening shift in a factory who could be believed to have been at the tea kiosk at 9.00 PM while returning to his house or otherwise. This very circumstance makes his presence at 9.00 PM at the tea kiosk, which is dinner limit, a little doubtful. There are other circumstances contributing to the doubt about his presence at the spot.

22. He has stated that the place of occurrence is 200 meters away from the bridge. His assertion that he has been an eye-witness of the occurrence is contradicted by his statement that he reached the spot after 15 minutes of the occurrence. If it is believed that he reached the spot, though 15 minutes after the occurrence, it is the case that Bipan Chand Sharma was taken to the hospital in a police ambulance that came to the spot 20 minutes after the occurrence. Now, a question would arise as to whether he saw Bipan Chand Sharma being taken to the hospital. If it is so, and it is not an impossibility because he claims to have remained at the spot till Bipan Chand Sharma was taken to the hospital. He would have been able to tell as to who accompanied Bipan Chand Sharma to the hospital. Regarding the family members of Bipan Chand Sharma, he says that they accompanied the injured to the hospital, but regarding others he pleaded ignorance. If he was there, he could not plead ignorance as he has done while appearing as PW-2.

23. The next very important circumstance which goes against the credibility of Manohar Lal (PW-2) is that despite his claiming himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and his visiting the hospital again and again, he had made a statement to the police regarding the occurrence on 3.5.2002. It shows that he kept mum about the occurrence for about 14 days and did not disclose to anyone that he is an eye-witness of the occurrence. When he was questioned as to why he remained silent in this regard, he told that he was afraid of the assailants who were criminals. There is no doubt that a person can be afraid of bad elements and he can be concerned about his own safety and can keep mum regarding such an incident, but in that event, there must be some acceptable and sound reason to open up after 14 days. He says that on 3.5.2002, police came to him and he made a statement. Neither there is any explanation as to how the fear of the witness evaporated nor it is there on the record as to how the police came to know that he was an eye witness of the occurrence so as to come to him for recording his statement. For all these reasons, I believe that statement of Manohar Lal (PW-2) cannot be relied upon. However, it cannot be said in this situation that the statement of Bipan Chand Sharma would be discarded for want of any corroboration. He has suffered gunshot injuries and his own statement can be relied upon to hold conviction of the accused.

24. It is a fact that Bipan Chand Sharma was although, the General Secretary of URMU and was often visiting the Delhi office of URMU, yet the accused of the spot are residents of Lucknow and he was not familiar with them previously. There are a number of improvements, he made while appearing as PW-1 over his statement Ex. PA. Those improvements are on the aspect of the description of vehicles used by the assailants, age of the riders as also on the presence of source of light at the spot.

25. In Ex. PA, the complainant has stated that when he took turn from Jagraon bridge, one motorcycle and one scooter, on which two boys each were riding, came from his back side. He has referred to the word scooter a number of times while describing the riders of the scooter. So, it is not a case where the vehicle was casually referred to at one point of time. Reference to the word scooter, having come several times, shows that the assailants were on one motorcycle and one scooter. Appearing as PW-1, he has stated that the assailants came on two motorcycles. It appears that two motorcycles were found abandoned by the police in this case that the version has been changed under the advice of the public prosecutor. When he was confronted with his previous statement in this regard, he did not say that he might have stated about the scooter on account of mistake, but insisted that he had stated about two motorcycles only. About the riders of the scooter, the complainant had stated that both of them were of the age of 20 or 22 years. Appearing as PW-1, he has stated that both the pillion riders were of this age and both the drivers of the motorcycles were of the age of 40 or 45 years.

26. In the FIR, the complainant tried to give the colour, height and other features of the assailants. According to him, the driver of the motorcycle was clean shaven and the pillion rider of the scooter was having small mustaches. The occurrence is of sometime past 9.00 PM and unless and until there was light, these particulars such as clean shaven or having small mustaches, cannot be noticed. So, this description of the assailants would be acceptable only if there was light at the spot. However, the time is of darkness and unless there was some source of light at the spot, the spot could not be lighted. Though, PW-1 says that there was light at the spot, the statement of Satinderpal Singh (PW-8) goes against this version.

27. Satinderpal Singh (PW-8) has recorded the statement of Bipan Chand Sharma in the evening of 20.4.2002 and the FIR was registered at 10.50 PM and thereafter, he visited the spot. Initially, he claimed that there was light at the spot. However, his claim was exposed in his cross-examination where he has admitted his mentioning in his investigation that he inspected the place of occurrence during night and there was darkness around the place of occurrence and that he inspected the spot with the help of torch light and the light of vehicles. A torch and light of vehicles would be required to bring the place of occurrence to light only if there was no source of light available at the spot. The occurrence took place in the night time and the inspection of the spot was conducted by Satinderpal Singh in the night time though on different date. It can not be believed that there was source of light at the spot on 19.4.2002 and that source of light vanished on the next day.

28. Now, a question that would arise for answer is as to how the complainant came to know about the names of the assailants. It is a case where they were not named in the FIR which itself means that they were not known to the complainant. The occurrence is found to have taken place in darkness. At least, it was not a time when day light was available. In day light, a person can see the assailants more properly and could remember properly the physical features of the assailants, but in the night time, even if there was some light, the fleeting glimpses of the assailants are there and the features of the assailants cannot be memorised.

29. It is a case where no test identification parade had been got conducted. The complainant did not know the assailants despite his being Chief Ticket Inspector as also the General Secretary of URMU. Appearing as PW-1, he has stated in his cross-examination that accused were not got identified by the police in any court. The names of the accused are stated by him to have been revealed to him by some persons who arrived in the hospital from Lucknow. I am at loss to understand as to how those persons could tell the names of the assailants to the complainant.

30. It is a case where the police admittedly had shown photographs to the complainant. Whose photographs were those is not clear on the record. After showing the photographs and meeting of Lucknow people, police recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and he had stated therein that the photographs were of Jai Baksh and C.B. Singh. Despite this fact, the persons firing shots are said to be Tej Bahadur Singh and Varinder Singh. Wherefrom the complainant came to know of their names is a mystery.

31. It is although, the claim of the complainant that he was told the names of the assailants by the person visiting him from Lucknow office, yet those people are not named to the police nor their statements were recorded. It is they, who could tell about their knowledge of the incident and the identity of the assailants at the trial so that the accused would have been able to test their veracity by putting them to cross-examination. In these circumstances, I do not find the statement of the complainant also to be reliable on the identity of the persons who were the assailants.

32. Coming to the aspect of motive, it is said that H.N. Pandey wanted to occupy the position of Branch Secretary of Lucknow branch of URMU and for that purpose, he, Ashok Kumar Pandey and others used to pressurize the complainant. It has come on the record that for even asking Mr. J.P. Vajpayee to officiate as Branch Secretary, order of General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi was required. It has not been made clear on the record as to what was the authority of the General Secretary for putting any person in the place of Branch Secretary. Rules in this regard have not been placed on the file and the circumstances that have come on record, show that Bipan Chand Sharma was not in a position to put H.N. Pandey on the post of Branch Secretary of Lucknow branch of URMU.

33. Assuming that Bipan Chand Sharma was in a position to fill up the vacancy of Branch Secretary of URMU branch of Lucknow and he had the authority to put H.N. Pandey in that position and he was not agreeing to their demand, it cannot be said that this provides adequate motive to H.N. Pandey and others to have got this murderous assault made on Bipan Chand Sharma. The evidence of the various witnesses on the aspect of charge u/s 120-B IPC also do not lead the court anywhere. It is true, as noticed by learned trial court that criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same, yet it is a case of no evidence at all. On this aspect of the case, Viney Kumar may have been the previous owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1S(M)-2587. He is not connecting the appellants with the crime. Ranbir Singh (PW-5) recovered this motorcycle lying abandoned on the back side of Railway Colony No. 5. Satinderpal Singh had taken into possession both the motorcycles. Indervir Singh took a snap of two persons together. Shyam Sunder Trehan and Ashok Kumar belong to Toni Motors and they sold two motorcycles to different persons.

34. It is true that the persons purchasing the motorcycles were not the persons whose names were given while purchasing the motorcycles. Their addresses were though found to be fake, yet that would not mean that it was the accused who or two of them had purchased the said motorcycles. Identification of some person with the help of a small photograph who was not earlier known to the victim is difficult. Ram Asre (PW-15) does not say as to who had booked the truck of the Railways for bringing material from Patiala, Ludhiana and New Delhi. His statement falls too short of proof of the fact that H.N. Pandey or any other accused had booked the truck for transporting the motorcycles to Ludhiana.

35. I have gone through the judgment of learned trial court. I cannot agree with the reasons given by learned trial court in relying upon the statements of the witnesses and concluding that the same is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. I have found the entire evidence to be quite discrepant and untrustworthy and, therefore, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for any offence.

36. I have gone through the judgments cited by learned senior counsel for the complainant. They are decisions on their own facts. The facts of the case before me are quite different and for that reason also, I find that they have no application to the facts of this case. For the above given reasons, the appeals are accepted and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge.