G.N. RAY, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal under Section 14(1 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act. 1984. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28/11/1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special court, Ferozepur, in Trial No. 27 of 1984 arising out of FIR No. 141 of 1984 of the Police Station, Abohar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2) THE prosecution case in short is that the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife Chameli Devi, the deceased, on account of Chameli Devi having illicit relation with one Kirpal Singh. On 8/5/1984, Public Witness I-Bishan Dial, his brother Tej Ram and the wife of Bishan Dial, Dropati, went to the house of the appellant Pattu Lal to get the dispute between the deceased and Pattu Lal settled. The deceased threatened to get divorce and marry Kirpal Singh. On the night of 24 and 25/5/1984, Public Witness 1 Bishan Dial, the said Tej Ram and Dropati slept at the house of Pattu Lal and at about 6.00 a.m. on 25/5/1984, Bishan Dial got up on hearing alarm and saw Pattu Lal giving injuries to Chameli Devi with toka and Chameli Devi died at the spot. Public Witness 1 Bishan Dial took his father with his bloodstained clothes and the said toka Ex. M/G/I to the Police Station, Abohar, where he lodged the FIR Ex. P-1 at about 7.00 a.m. On the basis of the said FIR, a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Public Witness 3 Shri Thakur Singh, Additional Station House Officer, took up the investigation who placed Pattu Lal under arrest and the bloodstained toka and also bloodstained clothes produced before him were seized. Thereafter, the said investigating officer (Public Witness 3 proceeded to the spot and collected bloodstained earth under memo of seizure Ex. P-7 and also seized the blanket and chadar of the deceased by seizure memo effects Ex. P-8. Autopsy of the dead body of Chameli Devi was performed by Dr Dalip Kumar on 25/5/1984 at about 3.30 p.m. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to Injury 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution examined Bishan Dial Public Witness 1, the son of the accused and also the doctor holding the post-mortem examination (Public Witness 2 Dr Dalip Kumar), the said investigating officer Public Witness 3 and other formal witnesses. Public Witness 1 Bishan Dial was, however, declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears from the deposition of Public Witness 1 that his father and mother were living together and Bishan with his wife and brother Tej Ram had been living separately in a different house. The said witness also admitted that at the police station he had given a thumb mark under the FIR. He also admitted that his brother Tej Ram also accompanied him to the police station. No plausible reason has been indicated by the said witness which might have prompted the said investigating officer to fabricate the said FIR on making false allegations. The investigating officer specifically stated in his deposition that the accused was produced at about 7.00 a.m. at the police station by Public Witness 1 Bishan Dial himself and the bloodstained clothes and the toka with which murder had been committed were also produced by the said Bishan Dial. It may be stated here that the bloodstained clothes and the toka with which the murder is alleged to have been committed had been sent for forensic test and the report is to the effect that the said clothes and the toka contained human blood.

(3) THE learned counsel for the appellant has very strongly contended before us at the hearing of this appeal that in the instant case, the prosecution wanted to prove the charge of murder by examining Bishan Dial who was stated to be an eyewitness. But the said Bishan Dial has denied in his deposition that he had seen the oc