1. These appeals are allowed by this Court after hearing the parties in the court today with the observations that reasons shall follow, as such the reasons are being given as under:

2. All these appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench Jaipur, whereby the High Court has dismissed D.B.Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1260 of 2008, 38 of 2009, 188 of 2009, 189 of 2009, 205 of 2012, and 206 of 2012 by the order impugned before us. The High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1), Kota, in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2007,and maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused namely Lalit Verma (A-1), Bharat Gurjar (A-2), Rewariya @ Raju @ Devishanker (A-3), Mujeeb Pahalwan (A-4), Arvind @ Bhiaiyalal @ Babua Bihari, (A-5), Mohd. Khalid @ Khalik (A-6), J.P @ Jay Prakash (A-7) and Kallu @ Kuldeep (A-8), in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 and 364 both read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (IPC). Each of the convicts was awarded sentence by the trial court to undergo imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default three months simple imprisonment, under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC; and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default three months simple imprisonment in respect of offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 120-B IPC. Except Mujeeb (A-4) all other convicts have challenged their conviction and sentence before us.

3. Prosecution story in brief is that PW 10 Rajendra Singh (Complainant) got lodged First Information Report (Ext.P-1) at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota regarding the incident dated 12.8.2007 at about 10 P.M. It is stated in the First Information Report that prior to the incident, there was quarrel between one Sonu and Kanhaiya, after Kanhaiya was bitten by dog of accused Kallu. And thereafter when the complainant's son Deepu (deceased) was sitting outside his shop, accused Lalit (A-1) came there and both of them along with PW 5 Shyam went to Hotel/Restaurant run by PW 2 Jeetu where they had meals together. Sonu's brother Kallu (A-8), Khalik(A-6) and Babua Bihari (A-5) said to have come there in a Alto Car belonging to J.P @Jai Prakash (A-7), and took Deepu with them whereafter Deepu was stabbed and murdered, and his dead body was found next day morning near MBS Hospital.

4. On the basis of above information, crime/FIR No. 192 of 2007 was registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota in respect of offence punishable under Sections 365, 143, 302,120-B IPC.

5. After the investigation, on 7.11.2007, first charge sheet was filed against five accused namely Lalit Verma (A-1), Bharat Gurjar (A-2), Rewariya @ Raju @ Devishanker (A-3), Mujeeb Pahalwan (A-4), Arvind @ Bhiaiyalal @ Babua Bihari, (A-5). Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed on 12.2.2008 against accused Mohd. Khalid @ Khalik (A-6), and J.P @ Jay Prakash (A-7 . And third chargesheet was filed on 17.9.2008 against Kallu @ Kuldeep (A-8).

6. The case was committed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.III, Kota to the Sessions Judge and the case was transferred to and ultimately tried by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kota. The accused were charged in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 read with Section 120-B IPC. Accused Rewariya, Mujeeb, Arvind, Bharat Gurjar and Kallu were further charged in respect of offence punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Accused pleaded not guilty on which prosecution got examined as many as twenty witnesses.

7. Out of twenty prosecution witnesses, the witnesses of material fact are only three namely - PW 2 Jitendra Singh Hoda, PW 3 Ram Laxman and PW 5 Shyam Verma. PW 2 Jitendra Singh Hoda stated that he knows nothing about the incident. This witness was got declared hostile by the prosecution. He has not supported the prosecution story at all. This witness Jitendra Singh Hoda is the one in respect of whom it is stated in the prosecution story that deceased along with Shyam Verma (PW 5) and Lalit (A-1) had gone to his restaurant. PW 2 Jitendra Singh Hoda has stated that he was busy with his business and unable to recollect as to how many customers came on that day and what happened thereafter on the road.

8. The next witness of fact is PW 3 Ram Laxman who is resident of Umed Ganj. He states that Jai Prakash(A-7) of Village Dhakar Kheli and Lalit (A-1) came to him on 8.12.2007. The incident in question is of 12.8.2007 and the date mentioned in the statement of this witness appears to be a clerical mistake). The witness further states that on the insistence of above two, he went with them near a Government hospital where accused Kallu, Mujeeb, Manju, Arvinder, Khalik, Rewariya were also there. Two boys came there, one of them was taken in a vehicle towards Lal Mandi where one of the boys was assaulted and he was left in injured condition near a power house. PW 3 Ram Laxman further states that he does not know who was that boy. This witness was also got declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the full prosecution story. It is relevant to mention here that name of Ram Laxman (PW 3) does not figure in the First Information Report as a witness.

9. The third witness of material fact is PW 5 Shyam Verma, who is stated to have accompanied the deceased with accused Lalit (A-1). We fail to understand as to how after investigation though role of the two was similar but Lalit was made accused and Shyam Verma was made prosecution witness. From the record, it does not appear that any application was moved under Section 306 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) before the Magistrate for tendering pardon to Shyam Verma before getting examined him as prosecution witness.

10. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants referring the case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and Others v. State of Gujarat (2014) 7 SCC 716 (paragraph 143) submitted that an approver is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars. There appears little corroboration of his testimony. After scrutinizing the evidence, we find that the courts below have erred in law in relying the testimony of PW 5, the person whose role is akin to that of one of the accused. The other two witnesses of fact namely PW 2 Jitendra Singh and PW 3 Ram Laxman have not supported the prosecution case.

11. PW 10 Rajendra Singh Complainant, is not an eye witness. He is the father of the deceased and has stated that before the incident in question, a quarrel occurred between one Sonu and one Kanhaiya but neither he nor Deepu (deceased) had any quarrel and dispute with either Sonu or Kanhaiya. He has further stated that Khalid (A-6) had also no enmity either with him or with his son (Deepu). This witness (PW 10) further disclosed that he has named the accused in the First Information Report as told by Shyam Verma (PW 5). This is not the case of abduction for ransom, nor there appears any enmity between the deceased and the accused persons.

12. It is also pertinent to mention here that name of Bharat Gurjar (A-2) does not figure in the First Information Report. Rather, PW 19 Ashok Kumar (Investigating Officer) has admitted in his statement that when report of present incident was lodged, Bharat Gurjar was already arrested and was at the police station in connection with the previous incident, relating to quarrel over dog bite.

13. There is yet another fact which has come on the record which further creates serious doubt as to the manner the incident said to have taken place as suggested by the prosecution. In the cross-examination of PW 5 Shyam Verma, name of one Nephu has also been disclosed by the witness with the name of other accused but it is not clear as to who is Nephu and why his name did not figure in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet.

14. In the above circumstances, after re-appreciating the entire record we found that there are serious doubts as to the manner prosecution has suggested that the crime is committed , and as such the courts below have erred in law in holding that the charge against the accused/appellants stood proved.

15. For the reasons as discussed above, we are of the view that since charge against the appellants is not proved on the record beyond reasonable doubt, they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charge and the conviction and sentence of the appellants Bharat Gurjar, Lalit Verma, Mohd. Khalid @ Khalik , Arvind @ Bhiaiyalal @ Babua Bihari, Revadia @ Raju @ Devishanker, J.P @ Jay Prakash, and Kallu @ Kuldeep stand set aside.