SOBARAN SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

                     [2014] 8 S.C.R. 169


                 SOBARAN SINGH & ORS.                               A
                               v.
                      STATE OF M.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No.1466 of 2012)
                        JULY 7, 2014
                                                                    B
        [T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
                  C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

    PENAL CODE, 1860:
                                                                    c
      s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - FIR registered 11 months after
'Marg' investigation - Accused named in FIR - Conviction of
all the three accused-appellants by trial court -- Affirmed by
High Court - Held: Out of five witnesses of occurrence, two
including an independent witness did not support prosecution D
case and they were declared hostile - Two of the remaining
witnesses are brothers and uncle of deceased - One of them
was not examined in 'Marg' investigation -- Testimonies of the
other two are at variance from their statements recorded
during 'Marg" investigation - Their testimonies do not inspire
                                                                  E
confidence and their conduct belies their version - Evidence
on record coupled with infirmities in investigation indicate that
prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of
appellants beyond reasonable doubt - Appellants are entitled
 to benefit of doubt and, as such, are acquitted.
                                                                  F
      INVEST/GA TION:

     Infirmities [n investigation - Held: In 'Marg' investigation
name of culprits not ascertained - A. S. /. who registered 'Marg'
intimation, not examined - 'Marg' Intimation Report neither         G
exhibited, nor proved - FIR registered after 11 months and
only thereafter during investigation statements of witnesses
were recorded who stated to have seen the accused attacking
the deceased - 10 who conducted part investigation, did not
                              169                                   H
    170       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   testify in trial - Investigation in the case is slip-shod.

       Appellants A-1 to A-3 were prosecuted for
  commission of the offence punishable uls 302 read with
  s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that at about 8.0P
8 A.M. on 6.9.1994, on the alarm raised by PW 10, PW 5 and
  PW 16 reached the place of occurrences and saw the
  victim, namely, the brother of PWs 5 and 16, lying on the
  ground and A-3 put his knee on the chest of the victim,
  after holdings his hands tight and A-1, who was armed
  with a 12 bore gun, and A-2 tied his neck with a muffler.
C After noticing the witnesses, the accused fled away. The
  victim was taken to the hospital, where he was declared
  brought dead. A report was lodged by PW6 and on its
  basis 'Marg' investigation was conducted. On 10.8.1995
  the FIR was registered. The trial court convicted: and
D sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life uls 302
  read with s. 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the
  conviction and sentence.

      In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
E appellants that the Marg Intimation Report showed that
  the complainant had only a suspicion against the
  accused and he did not state about their involvement in
  the crime and the accused were convicted merely on the
  evidence of the informant and other eye witnesses, who
F were the family members of the deceased, having enmity
  against the accused; tha'tthe First Information Report
  came to be registered after nearly a year from the date of
  occurrence and on deliberation and afterthought, the
  statements of the material witnesses were recorded
G falsely implicating the accused; and that there were
  embellishment and material contradictions in the
  statements of the witnesses and the investigation was
  biased and tainted and the prosecution failed to prove the
  charge against the accused persons.

H         Allowing the appeal, the Court
    SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                171


     HELD: 1.1. From the medical evidence it is clear that A
the deceased died of asphyxia. by strangulation. The
prosecution case is that accused nos.1 to 3 in
furtherance of their common intention committed the
murder of the deceased by strangulating him with a
muffler (Safee) and to prove the same, they examined B
PW5, PWS, PW10, PW11 and PW16 as having witnessed
the occurrence. PW10 and PW11 did not support the fase
of the prosecution in full and were treated as hostile. Two
among the remaining ocular witnesses are brothers of
deceased. [para 8-9] [177-G-H; 178-A-B]
                                                     1
                                                            c
     1.2. lmm~diately after the occurrence, during Marg
investigation, PW5 was examined and from the said
statement, it is evident that he did not witness the
incident. It is also relevant to point out that, after
registration of the FIR on 10.8.1995, the statement of PW- D
5 was recorded by the Investigation Officer, wherein, for
the first time, he has stated about having witnessed the
occurrence. In the Marg investigation, PW-16 was not
examined and he was examined only after registration of
the FIR on 10.8.1995, which is almost a year after the E
occurrence. Though both the witnesses claimed to haves
en the occurrence, during which the accused attac
ed the deceased resulting in his death, they have not lodg
d a complaint in the police station and had not taken
imme~iate steps for the arrest of the accused. Their F
testimonies do not inspire confidence and conduct belies
their version. [para 11, 12] [178-F-H; 179-A-B] .

     1.3. Exh.02 is the statement of PW6 given on 6.9.1994
to the police, wherein, he has stated that around 9.00 a.m.    G
on the occurrence day, his brother PW10 told him at the
tube-well that the deceased was lying unconscious near
the drain (Nalah) and he and his nephew and PW-11 went
to the drain and found the deceased lying unconscious
with injuries and there was safee around his neck and          H
    172    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R. ·


A they took him in a tractor-trolley to the.hospital where he
  was declared dead and he had doubt on accused no.1
  and accused no.3 as the dispute was going on with them.
  About 11 months after the occurrence, the First
  Information Report came to be registered on 10.8.1995
B and the statement of PW-6 was recorded and in that
  statement, for the fir~t time, PW-6 has come out with the
  version that he witnessed· the attack made by the
  accused on the deceased, which resulted in his death ..
  But, he did not state so in his complaint given before the
c police station. On the other hand, he had only expressed
  his suspicion on accused no.1 and accused no.3 in his
  complaint and did not whisper about witnessing the
  occurrence for a period of 11 months. During cross-
  examination, the said statement was put to PW6 and he
0 simply denied it and stated that he informed the police
  about the accused attacking the deceased. Thus, the
  testimony of PW6 does not inspire confidence and no
  credence can be given to it. [para 13-14] [179-G-H; 180-
  A, 8-E]
E      1.4. The complainant PW10 has tes.tified that on
  6.9.1994 at 8.00 a.m. he took buffaloes for grazing and
  saw the accused persons beating his nephew i.e the
  deceased and he cried and thereafter, PW5, PW6 and
  PW16 came there and the accused fled away and they
F took injured to the hospital where he was pronounced
  dead. However, in the ,cross-examination, PW10 admitted
  that he was examined by police on the date of
  occurrence itself, name!y 6.9.1994, and the Marg diary
  statement is Ext. D/2-A. In the said statement he gave a
G different version which is the earliest in point of time
  wherein, he has not stated about the attack made by the
  assailants on the deceased. He did not support the
  prosecution case in full and was declared as hostile.
  [para 15-16] [180-F-H]
H
    SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                173

     1.5. PW11 is an independent witness and he was              A
staying in the tube-well of PW10 on 6.9.1994 and
according to him, he heard the cry of PW10 and he along
with PW5 and PW6 ran there and saw the deceased lying
seriously injured and the accused proceeding towards
village from Nalah; that they took the injured to the            B
hospital in the tractor-trolley and he was dead by then.
This witness was also treated as hostile by the
prosecution and his testimony does not help the
prosecution case in any way. [para 17] [181-E-F]

     2.1. The investigation in this case is slip-shod. The
                                                                 c
Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, who
registered the Marg u/s 174 CrPC was not examined in
the trial. No explanation was offered by the prosecution
for his non-examination. PW12, who is the station in-
charge, has admitted that during Marg enquiry he could           D
nohisce.(tain the names of culprits nor could register the
crime. In fact, at the instance of the higher police
authority, the FIR came to be registered against the
accused on 10.8.1995, after a period of 11 months from
the date of occurrence and the statements were recorded          E
on 10.8.1995 and only in those statements, for the first
time, PWs 5, 6, 10, 11 and 16 have stated that they saw
the accused persons attacking the deceased during the
occurrence. The Marg Intimation Report, which was
recorded, was neither exhibited nor proved by                    F
prosecution in the trial. The Investigation Officer, who
conducted part of investigation, did not testify in the trial.
The High Court has elaborately dealt with the said
omissions in the impugned judgment and proceeded to
observe that investigation agency cannot be permitted to         G
conduct investigation in a tainted and biased manner and
has concluded that the investigation was defective and
tainted, but has held that the defective investigation by
itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. The evidence on
                                                                 H
     174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R. ·


 A the record, coupled with the infirmities noticed, has
   created an impression that the prosecution has not been
   able to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond
   reasonable doubt. The High Court even after noticing the
   infirmities, fell in error in confirming the conviction of the
 B appellants. The reasons given by the High Co'urt do not
   commend to this Court to sustain the conviction ,and
   sentence. They are neither sufficient nor adequate or
   cogent much less compelling to uphold the impugned
   judgment. As a result, this Court holds that the case
 c against the appellants has not been proved beyond
   reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt
   and, as such, the conviction and sentences imposed on
   them are set aside. [para 20) [181-G-H; 182-A-H]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
· D No.1466 of 2012.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2012 in
     Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2004 of the High Court of M.P.
     Bench at Gwalior.
 E
         J.C. Gupta, Yogesh Tiwari, Dharam Singh, Sanjay K..
     Agrawal for the Appellants.

         C.D. Singh, Darpan Bhuyan, Sakshi Kakkar,       S~weta
     Singh for the Respondent.
 F
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the
   judgment dated 16.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya
 G Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2004.

        2. The appellants herein are accused nos.1 to 3 in the
   case in Sessions Trial No.8/97, on the file of Additional
   Sessions Judge, Gohad, District-Bhind (M.P.) and they were
   tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
 H Section 34 IPC and the Trial Court convicted them for the said
     SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                      175
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
 offence and sentenced each one of them to undergo                    A
 imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

     3. Challenging the convictiofi and sentence, the accused
preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2004 in the High        8
Court and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned
judgment and that is now under challenge in this appeal.

      4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows :

       PW5 Satyendra Singh, PW16 Brijendra Singh' and                 c
  deceased Narendra Singh are sons of PW7 Hanumant Singh.
  PW6 Uday Singh and PW10 Om Prakash are brothers of PW7
  Hanumant Singh. On 6.9.1994 at 8.00 a.m. PW5 Satyendra
  Singh and PW16 Brijendra Singh had gone to attend call of
  nature in the drain (Nalah) and they heard the sound of weeping     D
  and alarm raised by PW10 Om Prakash and they went there
 .and saw Narendra lying on the ground and accused no.3 Sardar
  Khan put his knee on his chest after holding his hands tight and
  accused no.1 Sobaran Singh and accused no.2 Suraj Singh
  tied his neck with a muffler (Safee) and accused no.1 Sobaran
                                                                      E
  Singh was armed with a 12-bore gun and due to fear, they did
· not go near Narendra and in the meanwhile, PW6 Uday Singh
  and PW11 Vishwanath Sharma .also rushed to the spot and on
  seeing them, accused· hos.1 to 3 ran away. They found
  Narendra alive with injuries on the neck, chest and right knee
  and they carried him to the tube-well and thereafter, put him on
                                                                      F
  the tractor-trolley and drove him to the hospital at Mau where
  he was declared dead by the Doctor. PW14 Dr. O.P. Tengar
  conducted the post-morte.m at 12.30 p.m. on 6.9.1994 over the
  body of Narendra and found the following :
                                                                      G
       (i)    Abrasion admeasuring 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm on calf
              muscle of right leg;

       (ii)   Abrasion multiple in number size varies from 2.5"
              to 3.0" in length and linear in width over right side
                                                                      H
    176           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A                  of neck 2" below the ear lobule and 2.2" above the
                   clavicle;

          (iii)    Abrasion 2 in number size 2.2'', 2.0" x linear just over
                   the cri~oids cartilage;
8         (iv)     Contusion 1.5" x 1.0" on the middle sternum.

        On dissection of the body, he found contusion on sternum
  and ecchymosed underneath the contusion (rupture of small
  capillaries and ventricles) with tracheal rings and cricoids
c cartilage fractured. Pharynx and larynx were conge~ted. He
  expressed opinion that death was caused due to stran£ulation
  (Asphyxia), 4-6 hours prior to autopsy and i~sued Exh.P16
  post-mortem report. Thereafter, PW6 Uday Singh went to Mau
  Police Station and lodged a report, which was registered in the
D shape of Marg, under Section 174 CrPC by Assistant Sub-
  Inspector of Police Bairam Singh. During the investigation of
  Marg, statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 7.8.1995,
  PW9 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Naresh Singh Kushwah
  registered a case in Crime No.76/1995 against accused nos.1
E to 3 for the alleged offence under Section 302 read with
  Section 34 IPC and prepared Exh.P13 FIR. During
  investigation of the case, witnesses were examined and final
  report was filed. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed
  against accused nos.1 to 3 and they were found guilty and were
  sentenced as narrated above and the appeal preferred by
F them was dismissed by the High Court. Challenging the same,
  accused nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.

       5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
  the Marg Intimation Report shows that the complainant had only
G a suspicion against the accused and he has not stated about
  their involvement in the crime and the accused have been
  convicted merely on the evidence of the informant and other eye
  witnesses, who are none else, but the family members of the
  deceased, having enmity against the accused and the First
H Information Report came to be registered after nearly a year
     SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                   177
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
from the date of occurrence and on deliberation and                  A
afterthought, the statements of the material witnesses have
been recorded falsely implicating the accused and there are
embellishment and material contradictions in the statements of
the witnesses and the investigation is biased and tainted and
the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the           B
accused persons and the High Court fell in error while
confirming the conviction imposed by the Trial Court and the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

     6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State
contended that the courts below, relying on the testimonies of       C
the ocular witnesses have found the accused guilty of the
offence charged and the conviction ana sentence imposed are
sustainable and does not call for any interference.

      7. Narendra died of Homicidal violence is sought to be D
proved by testimony of the post-mortem Doctor and opinion of
the Forensic Science Expert. PW14 Dr. O.P. Teng:ir conducted
autopsy on the body of Narendra and found abrasions multiple
in number with varying size over the right side of the neck and.
on di.ssection of the body, contusion on sternum and E
ecchymosed underneath with tracheal rings and cricoids
cartilage fractured and pharynx and larynx congested. In his
post-mortem report, he has opined that the death was caused
due to strangulation (Asphyxia), 4-6 hours prior to autopsy.
                                                                     F
     8. PW15 Dr. Ashok Sharma, Junior Forensic Specialist
has testified that he perused the post-mortem report, the Case
Diary and all the materials collected and was of the view that
there was no scientific basis tct disagree with the opinion of the
Autopsy Surgeon. Exh.P18 is the written opinion expressed by
him. Accepting the medical evidence it is clear that Narendra        G
died of Asphyxia by strangulation.

     9. The prosecution case is that accused nos.1 to 3 in
furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of
Narendra by strangulating him with a muffler (Safee) and to          H
    178      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A prove the same, they examined PW5 Satyendra Singh, PW6
  Uday Singh, PW10 Om Prakash, PW11 Vishwanath Sharma
  and PW16 Brijendra Singh as having witnessed the occurrence ..
  PW10 Om Prakash and PW11 Vishwanath Sharma did not
  support the case of the prosecution in full and were treated as
B hostile. Two among the remaining ocular witnesses are brothers
  of deceased Narendra.

        10. PW5 Satyendra Singh and PW16 Brijendra Singh
  have testified that on 6.9.1994 at 8.00 a.m. they had gone to
C Nalah .to attend call of nature and they heard. the sound of
  weeping and the alarm raised by PW10 Om Prakash and went
  there and found Narendra lying on the ground and accused no.3
  Sardar Khan put his knee on the chest of Narendra and holding
  his hands tight and accused no.1 Sobaral) Singh and accused
  no.2 Suraj Singh pressing the neck of Narendra by tying a
D muffler (Safee) and accused no.1 Sobaran Singh was armed
  with a 12-bore gun and due to fear, they did not go near and in
  the meanwhile, PW6 Uday Singh and PW11 Vishwanath
  Sharma rushed to the spot and on seeing them, the accused
  left the place and they took injured Narendra to the hospital at
E Mau in a tractor-trolley, where he was declared dead.

        11. Immediately after-the occurrence, during Marg
  investigation, PW5 Satyendra Singh was examined and in the
  said statement, he has stated that he was ploughing his Banjara
F field with tractor on 6.9.1994 and his uncle Om Prakash came
  running to his fLeld and informed him about the death of
  Narendra and this statement was put to PW5 Satyendra Singh
  in the cross-examination and, of course, he has denied the
  same. In this context it is also relevant to point out that, after
G registration of the First Information Report on 10.8.1995, the
  statement of Satyendra Singh was recorded by the Investigation
  Officer, wherein, for the first time, he has stated about having
  witnessed the occurrence.
      12. In the!" Marg investigation; Brijendra Singh was not
H examined and he was examined only after registration of the
    SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                  179
             [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
FIR on 10.8.1995, which is almost a year after the occurrence.    A
Though both the above witnesses claimed to have seen the
occurrence, during which the accused attacked Narendra
resulting in his death, they have not lodged a complaint in the
police station and had not taken imm~diate steps for the arrest
of the accused. Their testimonies do not inspire confidence and   B
conduct belies their version.
      13. It is the testimony of PW6 Uday Singh that on 6.9.1994
at about 8.00 a.m. he went to the tube-well and met Vishwanath
Sharma and they heard the alarm raised by PW10 Om Prakash
and they rushed there and he saw from a distance that Narendra C
lying on the ground with accused no.3 Sardar Khan armed with
a 12-bore gun sitting on his chest after holding both his hands
tight and accused no.1 Sobaran Singh and accused no.2 Suraj
Singh pressing the neck of Narendra by trying a muffler and
PW5 Satyendra Singh and PW16 Brijendra Singh also reached D
there and on seeing them, all the accused ran away and they
took injured Narendra in the tractor-trolley to the hospital where
he was declared dead by the doctor and he went to police
station and lodged Exh.01 Complaint. In his complaint PW6
Uday Singh has stated that on the occurrence day around 8.00 E
a.m. he went from his house for grazing the cattle and around
9.00 a.m. his brother Om Prakash told him that Narendra is
lying unconscious at the Har and thereafter, he, PW11
Vishwanath Sharma and PW5 Satyendra Singh went to Har
and saw Narendra lying unconscious on the ground and a safee F
was there around his neck and there were red coloured marks .
on the chest and they fook him in the tractor to the hospital at
Mau, where he was declared dead and he came to the police
station for filing the report and he has doubt on accused no.1
Sobaran Singh and accused no.3. Sardar Khan. In the Marg
Investigation, his statement was recorded, in which the same G
version has been told by him. As already seen, about 11
months after the occurrence, the Firs! Information Report came
to be registered on 10.8.1995 and the statement of Uday Singh
was recorded and in that statement, for the first time, Uday
 Singh has come out with the version that he witnessed the H
    180      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A attack made by the accused on Narendra, which resulted in
  death. If really, Uday Singh had seen the attack made by the
  accused persons on Narendra during the occurrence, he must
  have stated so in his complaint given before the police station
  implicating the accused. On the other hand, Uday Singh has
B only expressed his suspicion on accused no.1 and accused
  no.3 in his complaint and has not whispered about witnessing
  the occurrence for a period of 11 months.
       14. Exh.02 is the statement of PW6 Uday Singh given on
  6.9.1994 to the police, wherein, he has ~tated that around 9.00
C a.m. on the occurrence day, hil? brother PW10 Om Prakash
  told him at the tube-well that Narendra is lying unconscious near
  the drain (Nalah) and he and his nephew Satyendra and
  Vishwanath Sharma went to the drain and found Narendra lying
  unconscious with injuries and there was safee around his neck
D and they took him in a tractor-trolley to the hospital at Mau where
  he was declared dead and he has doubt on accused no.1
  Sobaran Singh and accused no.3 Sardar Khan as the dispute
  is going on with them. During cross-examination, the said
  statement was put to PW6 Uday Singh and he simply denied
E it and stated that he informed the police about the accused
  attacking Narendra. In short, the testimony of PW6 Uday Singh
  does not inspire confidence and no credence can be given to
  it.
       15. The complainant PW10 Om Prakash has testified that
F on 6.9.1994 at 8.00 a.m. he took buffaloes for grazing to
  Banjara field and saw the accused persons beClting his nephew
  Narendra and he cried and thereafter, PW5 Satyendra Singh,
  PW6 Uday Singh and PW16 Brijendra Singh came there and
  the accused fled away and they took injured Narendra to the
G hospital at Mau where he was pronounced dead. It is his further
  testimony, in e~amination-in-chief that he could not see by which
  weapon the accused persons were beating Narendra and due
  to the impairment of vision, he could not say whether the
  signatures found in the spot map and seizure memo.were that
H of his and he was treated as hos~ile by the prosecution.
     SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                 181
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
     16. In the cross-examination, PW10 Om Prakash admitted · A
that he was examined by police on the date ~f occurrence itself,
namely 6.9.1994, and the said Marg diary statement is Exh.D/
2-A, and he has stated therein that on the occurrence day in
the morning Narendra took buffaloes to Banjara wale Har and
after sometime, he went with his buffaloes and saw Narendra B
lying in the grass with white. liquid coming from mouth and nose
and he saw at a distance that accused no.2 Suraj Singh with a
12-bore gun, accused no.3 Sardar Khan and another person,
who could not be identified, going down by crossing the drain
(Nalah) and he ran to the tube-well and informed the same to       c
others and he along with PW5 Satyendra Singh, PW6 Uday
Singh and PW11 Vishwanath Sharma went to the occurrence
place and found injured Narendra alive and they took him to
the hospital at Mau, where he was declared dead and he has
doubt on accused nos.1 and 3 about their involvement in the
                                                                 0
death of Narendra. The above version is the earliest in point
of time wherein, he h~s not stated about the attack made by
the assailants on Narendra. Moreover, he did not support the
 prosecution case in full and was declared as hostile.
      17. PW11 Vishwanath Sl)arma is an independent witness        E
and he was staying in the tube-well of PW10 Om Prakash on
6.9.1994 and according to him, he heard the cry of PW10 Om
Prakash and he along with PW5 Satyendra Singh and PW6
Uday Singh ran there and saw Narendra lying seriously injured
and saw the accused proceeding _towards village from Nalah         F
and they took injured Narendra to the hospital in the tractor-
trolley and he was dead by then. This witness was also treated
as hostile by the prosecution and his testimony does not help
the prosecution case in any way.
     18. The investigation in this case is slip-shod. Bairam       G
Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Mau Police Station, who
registered the Marg under Section 174 CrPC was not
examined in the trial. No explanation was offered by the
prosecution for his non-examination. PW12 Bharat. Singh
Sikarwar, who is the station in-charge, has admitted that during   H
    182       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A  Marg enquiry he could not ascertain th'e names of culprits nor
  could register the crime. In fact, at the instance of the higher
   police authority, the FIR came to be registered against the
  accused on 10.8.1995, after a period of 11 months from the·
  date of occurrence and the statements were recorded on
s 10.8.19'95 and only in fhose statements, for the first time, PWs
  5, 6, 10, 11 and 16 have stated that they saw the accused
   persons attacking Narendra during the· occurrence. The Marg
   Intimation Report, which was recorded, was neither exhibited
   nor proved by prosecution in the trial. The Investigation Officer
c Santosh Singh Gaur, who conducted part of investigation .did
   not testify in the trial. The High Court has elaborately dealt with
  -the said omissions in paragraph nos.19 and 25 of the judgment
   and proceeded to observe that investigation agency cannot be
   permitted to conduct investigation in a tainted and biased
   manner and concludes that the investigation was defective and
0
   tainted and the_ defective investigation by itself cannot b"e a
   ground for acquittal.

        19. Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record
  coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has
E created an impres?ion on our minds, that the prosecution has
  not been able to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond           a
  reasonable doubt. The High Court even after noticing the
  infirmities, in our opinion, fell in error in confirming the conviction
  of the appellants. The reasons given by the High Court do not
F commend to us to sustain the conviction and sentence. They
  are neither sufficient nor adequate or cogent much less
  compelling to uphold the impugned judgment.

     .. 20. As a result of our above discussion, we hold that the
G case against the appellants has not been proved beyond a
  reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.. Their
  appeal consequently succeed and is allowed and the conviction
  and sentence imposed on them .are set aside and they shall
  be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
H   Rajendra Prasad                                       Appeal allowed.