Important Point – Law is well-settled that in event of there being two possible views one supporting the accused should be upheld as presumption of innocence is a human right.

Moolchandani, J.

Validity of the judgment dated 17.6.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.52/2007 (74/2006) (114/05) has been assailed, by which the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC with life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. The contents of F.I.R. No.568 (Ex.P/3) of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction reads as under :-

^^vkt fnukad 27-09-2005 ds oDr 5-15 AM ij Jh thrk s/ogjusdflag tkfr jkenkfl;k mez 45 lky] fuoklh tk.kkokyh us gkftj Fkkuk vkdj tqckuh bryk nh fd eSa cqVkflag] gkdeflag o xksxk pkj HkkbZ gSA pkjksa HkkbZ vyx&vyx edkuksa esa ikl&ikl esa jgrs gSA gekjk firk gjusdflag gekjs ls FkksM+h nwjh ij vyx edku esa jgrk gSa dy ‘kke dks djhc 8] 8 1@2 cts eSa o esjk HkkbZ cqVkflag rFkk firk gjusdflag rhuksa [ksr ls vius & vius ?kj vk;s rks eSa o cqVkflag us ns[kk fd esjs HkkbZ gkdefalg o xksxk rFkk gkdeflag ds yM+ds xqjizhr o iIik gkdeflag ds ?kj ls gesa xkfy;k fudky jgs FksA gkdeflag dk ?kj esjs iM+kSl esa gSA mu }kjk xkfy;k fudkyus ds dkj.k esjk yM+dk fjdw mQZ lrjkt esjs firk gjusdflag dks cqykdj yk;k fd budks le>k nks xkfy;ka er fudkys rc esjk firk gjusdflag djhc 9 cts jkf= esjs ?kj vk;k eq>s iwNk rks eSaus mudks xkfy;ka gkdeflag oxSjgk }kjk fudkyus dh ckr crkbZ rc mlus dgk rqe pqidj ?kj esa cSBks eSa mudks le>krk gwa rc esjk firk gkdefalg ?kj esa f[kM+dh [kqyh Fkh ftlds vUnj ls x;k gkdeflag ds ?kj esa gkdefalg] xksxk o gkdefalg ds yM+ds xqjizhr o iIik Fks ftUgksaus esjs firk gjusdfalg ds gkdeflag ds ?kj esa tkrs gh xsV dh f[kM+dh vUnj ls cUn dj nhA lHkh dgus yxs fd cw<sa dks Hkh vkt lcd fl[kkrs gSA ;g dgrs dh ykfB;k o yksgs dh xUnkyh ls lHkh us ,d jk; gksdj pksVs ekjuh ‘kq: dj nh gesas yydkjk fd gekjs ?kj esa vk;s rks tku ls ekj nsaxs rc eSaus o cqVkfalag us esjs edku dh Nr ij p<+dj ns[kk rks esjs firk gjusdflag dks gkdeflag] xksxk] xqjizhrflag] iIik ykfB;k o xUnkfy;ksa ls pksVs ekj jgs Fks fQj eSaus nyhifalg o xqajnsoflag dks cqyk;k ftuds vkus ij geus gekjs edku dh Nr ij nqckjk p<+dj gkdeflag ds ?kj esa ns[kk rks esjk firk pksVs yxus ds dkj.k gkdeflag ds ck[ky esa ejk iM+k Fkk gkdeflag ikl esa [kM+k Fkk] xksxk] xqjizhr o iIik b/kj&m/kj gks x;s Fks gkdefalg oxSjk us esjs firk gjusdflag dks xkfy;ka fudkyus ls euk djus ij ykfB;k o yksgs dh xUnkyh ls pksVs ekj dj tku ls ekj fn;k gS bryk nsrk gwa dk;Zokgh dh tkosA**

3. Post investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to learned trial Court, which after framing of charges, conducted trial, prosecution produced ten witnesses and also got documentary evidence exhibited, and after examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC, trial Court concluded the trial with aforesaid verdict by convicting all the accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC.

4. While submitting oral arguments, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that almost all the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile. Even complainant has also not supported story of the FIR and he too has turned hostile, recovery of the alleged weapon is also not substantiated because one of the recovery witness has not been produced and nothing concrete has been uttered by another witness. Spot map (Ex.P/6) of the place of occurrence is suggestive that the alleged incident took place inside the tenement of a walled premises, which was not visible at all from outside and Buta Singh PW-5 has asserted that he witnessed the incident from roof top of the house of Jeeta Singh, but perusal of the spot map indicates that nothing could be observed from the terrace of Jeeta Singh’s house into the adjacent house of Hakam Singh, so story of observing something factual becomes futile.

PW-4 Kaddu Singh is not an independent witness, who too has asserted in his cross-examination that a criminal case was tried against him pertaining to Hakam Singh’s family member’s kidnapping, so he was obv