Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed by the appellant/accused, against the impugned judgment rendered on 12.07.2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P in Sessions trial No. 20 of 2009, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6th August, 2009, at about 7 a.m. Shri Rajiv Sharma telephonically informed Police Station, Amb that one person is lying dead in the ‘Sarai’ near the hotel on Nehrian road. On receipt of said information, rapat No.10 was entered in the Police Station and thereafter, ASI Mohinder Singh along with other police officials proceeded to the spot. The villagers told to the police that the dead body is lying in the verandah of the ‘Sarai’. Sh. Jagdish Chander, the complainant made a statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. to the police to the effect that On 6.8.2009, in the morning, he went to answer the call of the nature and filled the water in a bottle from the tank near the ‘Sarai’ and went to the ‘khad’. Around 6.30 a.m., after easing out, he returned to the water tank, kept the bottle there and washed his hands. He noticed that in the left corner of the verandah of the ‘Sarai’, a person is lying. He then went towards the verandah and spotted a man lying there with his back towards the floor. Blood was oozing out from his mouth and head of that man which had collected in the verandah. A stone weighing about 18-20 kilograms having the blood stains was also lying nearby. The man was dead and naked below the waist. Another person, who was lying in the other corner of the verandah of the ‘Sarai’ had covered himself with a chadar (sheet) and was sleeping. He rushed to his house and narrated the incident to his brother Sh. Mulkh Raj. Thereafter, he and Sh. Mulkh Raj went to the spot and saw the dead body. In the meanwhile, the person who was sleeping in the verandah had run away. He and his brother Mulkh Raj then came towards the hotel. One person was standing there to catch the bus. He inquired from that person as to where that man has gone, who was sleeping in the verandah of the ‘Sarai’. The person, who was standing to board the bus, divulged that the said man has gone towards Amb road. On this, his brother Mulkh Raj and the owner of the hotel Sh. Surinder Kumar followed the man on a scooter. That person was apprehended by them near Swami Vivekanand School and brought to the hotel. The police was informed. The bag which the accused was carrying was opened and checked. Pant of the deceased was recovered from it. The same was identified by Sh. Surinder Kumar and others as that of the deceased since he was wearing the same on the previous day. Blood stains were also there on the ‘parna’ of the accused. On inquiry, the accused disclosed his name as Sh. Labh Singh. The complainant suspects that the murder has been committed by the accused owing to some enmity or the fight. Endorsement was made on this statement by ASI Mohinder Singh and the same was sent to Police Station, Amb for registration of the FIR and accordingly, an FIR was registered in Police Station. The police carried out the investigation in the case and during the course of investigation, the accused was arrested by the police for his having committed the murder of the deceased.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court.

4. Accused was charged for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and no evidence was led by him in defence.

6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant.

7. The accused/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication.

9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

10. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Praveen Kumari who has deposed that deceased was her husband. She deposes that on 5.8.2009, she had gone to her parental house at Gari Manewal on the occasion of Rakhi. However, her husband was at home. On 6.8.2009, she returned back her home, however she did not find her husband at home. Her mother-in-law disclosed to her that her husband had gone to Baba Badbhag Singh. She deposes that on 9.8.2009, she had seen the photograph of her husband in the news paper (Punjab Kesari). Consequently, she alongwith her mother-in-law and one Shri Sukhwinder Singh, had gone to identify the dead body in the mortuary at ZH Una. She further deposes that she had identified the body to be that of her husband. In the above regard, memo Ex. PW-1/A was prepared by the police, which has been deposed to be bearing her signatures. Her mother-in-law and Sukhwinder Singh, as its witnesses also signed the same. The memo bears her signatures at Point A. She deposes that she can even identify the clothes worn by her husband at the relevant time. On the clothes of the deceased having been shown to her, after opening the sealed parcel, with the permission of the Court, she has deposed that Ex. P-1, the pant shown to her in the Court is the same which was worn by her husband at the relevant time.

11. PW-2 Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased deposed that on the day of Purnima (Full Moon Day) and Raksha Bandhan, the deceased had gone to Baba Badbhag Singh. She continues to depose that her daughter-in-law i.e wife of the deceased had gone to her parental house at Ghari Mansual. Further she deposes that her deceased son never returned home. She deposes that she had seen the photograph of the dead body of his deceased son in a newspaper. By the time, her daughter-in-law has also returned back. Thereafter, she alongwith her daughter-in-law and one Sukhwinder Singh had proceeded to Mortuary in ZH, Una to identify the body of the deceased. She deposes that she had identified the body lying in the dead house to be that of her son. Memo Ex. PW-1/A was prepared, which bears her thumb impression as well as signatures of Praveen. The memo has been deposed to be witnessed by Sukhwinder Singh and one Joginder Singh. During her examination-in-chief, she deposes that she can identify the clothes which were worn by the deceased, being pant Ex. P-1, shown to her in the Court, to be worn by the deceased when he left home.

12. PW-3 Dr. Rahul Katna deposes that on 6.8.2009, on an application Ex.PW3/A moved by the police, he conducted the medical examination of accused Labh Singh and also collected his blood sample. He further deposes that he issued MLC Ex.PW3/B which is deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. The blood sample of the accused has been deposed by this witness to have been handed over to the police.

13. PW-4 Dr. Deepak Sharma, deposes that on 6.8.2009, on an application, Ex.PW4/A moved by the police he conducted the autopsy of the dead body at 2.14 p.m. on the same day. He further deposes that during the course of postmortem of the deceased, he noticed following injuries:-

'1. Depressed fracture of right maxilla, mandivle Maxillozygomatic complex.

2. Multiple fracture of right temporal parietal, a frontal bone and occipital bone.

3. Left parital and temporal bone were also fractured.

4. On opening the scull there was blood in extradural, sub dural and sub arachmoid space.

5. Sufnide bones were fractured.

6. Whole of the brain was smashed and anatmicle lopces of brain could not be identified.

7. Base of the skull was fractured, and part of brain was herniating through base of skull.

8. Mouth was filled with blood and all teeth were fractured.'

He deposes that as per his opinion the deceased had died owing to crushing injury and smashing of brain with multiple fracture of the skull. No sign of sexual assault were found during the examination. He further deposes that the probable duration between the injury and death was opined to be immediate while that of injury and post mortem was opined to be about 12 hours. He further deposes that he issued the postmortem report Ex.PW4/D which has been deposed by this witness to be in his hand and bearing his signature. He further deposes that the injuries reflected in the post mortem report are possible by heavy stone.

14. PW-5 HHC Ashwani Kumar No.274 deposes that on 6.8.2009 he had taken the photographs of the spot with his digital camera and prepared a video film. Photographs have been deposed by this witness to be Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C. He continues to depose that he had also prepared a video film and the disc thereof has been deposed by this witness to be Ex. PW5/D.

15. PW-6 Pradeep Kumar, Surveyor NH, Sub Division, Amb, Una deposes that on 19.10.2009, at the request of the police he prepared spot map showing the position of NH vis--vis the place of occurrence. Spot map has been deposed by this witness to be Ex.PW6/A and the same has been deposed by this witness to be in his hand and bearing his signatures. PW-7 SI Ashok Kumar prepared the supplementary challan in the case after receipt of FSL report Ex.PW7/A.

16. PW-8 C. Rajesh Kumar, proved report No.10 dated 6.8.2009, Ex.PW8/A, which has been deposed by this witnesses to be true and correct copy of the original brought by him in Court.

17. PW-9 Shri Jagdish Chander deposes that he is working as peon in the SDM, Office Amb. He deposes that he proceeds to home daily in the evening. He deposes that on 6.8.2009 at about 6.30 a.m. he went out to ease. He deposes that he took a water bottle from a water tank near the sarai. After easing out he went to the water tank again and washed his hand, when he turned back, he saw a person lying in the verandah of the sarai. That person was wearing only a vest. He further deposes that he had gone near that man and noticed the blood oozing out from his head. A stone is deposed to be lying nearby. Blood stains have also been noticed by him on the floor etc. In another corner of the verandah, another person is deposed to be lying, who had covered himself with a sheet. He deposes that he went back to his house and after sometime he and Mulk Raj went to the verandah and noticed that dead body was lying there, however, the other person had fled away. Then he inquired from a person, who was standing to catch the bus, as to where that man has gone who was lying in the verandah. The said person has been deposed to have told to him that the person who has covered his face, has proceeded towards Amb. He further deposes that the Hotel of Shri Surinder is nearby. Mulkh Raj and Surinder Singh have been deposed by him to board a scooter and left for Amb to catch hold of the man. The said person was apprehended in Kuthera Kheria and has been deposed to be brought to the Hotel. The police has been deposed to have telephonically informed by Shri Rajiv Kumar. Hence, the police reached the Hotel. On being asked, the man disclosed his name to be Labh Singh, the accused present in the Court. Accused has been deposed by this witness to be having a bag of clothes. The said bag was opened and checked by the Police. One pant having blood stains was recovered by the police from the bag of the accused. Spot has been deposed to be inspected by the Police and photographs were also taken. Photographs of the deceased are Ex. PW-5/A to PW-5/C. Pant Ex. P-1 has been deposed to have identified by Sh. Surinder Kumar to be that of the deceased. Shri Surinder Kumar has been deposed to have seen the deceased wearing the said pant on the day earlier to the incident. Parna Ex. P-2, bundle of Beeries Ex. P-3 and stone Ex. P-4 have been deposed to be the same as were lying on the spot near the dead body. He deposes that he has made a statement comprised in Ex. PW-9/A before the Police which bears his signatures. Lastly he deposes that the man had died as the injures were inflicted on his person with a stone. In his cross-examination, he deposes that there is thickened vicinity near the place of occurrence and in case the fight takes place, its inhabitants would become aware about it. However, he deposes that it was night time. He also deposes that the pilgrims stop in the hotel of Surinder to take tea etc. The people keep on moving through out the night on the road as it is a national highway. He further deposed that the person who was lying in the verandah was at a distance of about 5-6 meters from the dead body and has covered his face with a sheet and he did not lift the sheet of that man to see him. He further submits that he had identified the sheet lateron, when the accused was apprehended. However the said sheet has not been shown to him in the Court. He further deposes that he does not know the name of the person who was standing to catch hold of a bus. However he feigns ignorance as to whether the sheet with which face of the man lying in the vicinity of the deceased was covered has been taken into possession by the police or not. However he deposes that he had not seen the face of the person who was lying in the verandah and had covered his face with chaddar. He further deposes that he had recognized that man from the chaddar and bag which was brought by S/Sh. Mulk Raj and Surinder.

18. PW-10 Sh. Mulkh Raj deposes in his examination-in-chief in square tandem and in corroboration to the testimony rendered by PW-9 Jagdish Chander. He deposes that pant Ex. P-1 was sealed by the police and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A. Memo Ex.PW10/A has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. He deposes that the seal was handed over to him by the police after its use. He further deposes that parna Ex. P2, bundle of beeries Ex.P-3 and stone Ex.P-4 lying at the spot were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW10/B which has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. He further deposes that inquest report Ex.PW4/B also bears his signatures. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that when they reached the spot, Sh. Surinder Kumar was there in his hotel. He deposes that Surinder Kumar open his dhaba daily at about 6-6.30 a.m.

19. PW-11 Pardeep Kumar deposes that on 6.8.2009, the clothes of the accused having blood stains were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW11/A which bears his signatures. He has identified T-shirt, Ex.P-5 and Lower Ext. P6 to be the same which were taken into possession by the police. In his cross-examination, he deposes that the clothes were taken into possession by the police in the police station.

20. PW-12 Sh. Surinder Kumar deposes that on 5.8.2009, the deceased was going towards Mairi and he was inebriated. He deposes that the deceased kept on moving for sometime near to his dhaba and he was wearing a white stripped shirt and off white pant and thereafter, he lied down in the verandha of Sarai Bhawan, which is 30-40 meters away from his dhaba. He deposes that he slept in his dhaba during the night and got up at 7 a.m. in the morning. Jagdish Chand and Mulkh Raj have been deposed by this witness to have come to him and informed him that a murder has taken place. He continues to depose that he went to the verandah of the Sarai and stone was lying there. He deposes that the blood was there on the floor. Photographs Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C have been deposed by this witness to be that of the deceased. He further deposes that Jagdish Chander told that a person has fled towards Amb. He deposes that he and Mulkh Raj followed that person on a scooter and nabbed him and thereafter brought him to the dhaba. He deposes that the police came on the spot and the bag of the accused was searched by the police. Off white coloured pant which the deceased was wearing on the previous day has been deposed by this witness to have been recovered from his bag. The pant has been deposed by this witness to be having blood stains and the pant has been deposed by this witness to have been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW10/A. Memo Ex.PW10/A has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. This witness identified the pant Ex.P1 to be that of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he had seen the deceased on 5.8.2009 at about 4-5 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that in case a fight takes place in the verandah of the Sarai, the noise can be heard in his dhaba. He deposes that he never seen the accused and the deceased together. He further deposes that Jagdish Chander did not tell him the identity of the man who had gone towards Amb. He has admitted the suggestion that buses go after every 5-10 minutes from Kuthera Kherla to Amb.

21. PW-13 Rajiv Sharma, deposes that on 6.8.2009 when he was going to his shop, Jagdish Chander and Mulkh Raj met him on the way and that he noticed a dead body, was lying in the verandah of the Sarai, on which he informed the police on telephone.

22. PW-14 H.C. Puran Bhagat Singh deposes that on 6.8.2009 five sealed parcels were deposited with him by ASI Mohinder Singh along with specimen of seal impressions. He further deposes that on 9.8.2009, another two sealed parcels along with sample seal were deposited with him by ASI Mohinder Singh and HHC Dev Raj. He further deposes that on 17.8.2009, HHC Gurdass Ram went to FSL Junga and deposited the case property with the laboratory and he on his return handed over the R.C. to him.

23. PW-15 HHC Gurdass Ram deposes that on 16.8.2009 he went to FSL, Junga and deposited the case property in the laboratory on 17.8.2009. He further deposes that on his return to the police station, the RC was given by him to the MHC.

24. PW-16, ASI Tara Singh, who has partly investigated the case, has deposes that the deceased was got identified from his wife and mother vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposes that the spot was got inspected from Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Surveyor and spot map Ex.PW6/A was got prepared from him. He further deposes that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He deposes that FIR Ex.PW16/A is correct as per the original which has been deposed by this witness to be bearing the signatures of ASI Arun Dev.

25. PW-17 ASI Mohinder Singh, deposes that on 6.8.2009, one Rajiv Sharma gave telephonic information in the police station to the effect that a dead body is lying in the Sarai. On receipt of said information, he along with other police officials proceeded to the spot. He deposes that accused Labh Singh, to whom he identified in Court, had been apprehended by the people. Several persons had assembled at the spot. He deposes that he inspected the spot and prepared the spot map Ex.PW16/A. The dead body has been deposed by this witness to have been checked by him. He deposes that photographs, Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C of the spot as also the dead body were clicked. He also deposes that he recorded the statement, Ex.PW9/A of Jagdish Chander under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. which was sent to the police station through constable Gopal Singh for the registration of the FIR. He deposes that during the course of investigation he conducted the search of the bag of the accused and recovered pant Ex.P-1 therefrom having blood stains which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A in presence of the witnesses. He further deposes that blood lying at the spot was lifted and put in a plastic dibba. He further deposes that the dibba was also wrapped, sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW10/A. He continue to depose that stone Ex.P-4, bundle of beeries, Ex.P-3 and parna Ex.P-2 which were lying near the dead body were also wrapped and sealed by him and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW10/B in presence of the witnesses. The accused has been deposed by this witness to have been arrested after informing him about the grounds of his arrest. Inquest reports Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C have been deposed by this witness to have been prepared at the spot. He further deposes that the dead body was sent by him for its post mortem examination to R.H. Una. He further deposes that the wearing clothes of the accused i.e. T-shirt Ex.P-5 and Lower Ext. P-6 having blood stains were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/A in presence of the witnesses. He further deposes that the sample of the seal after its use was handed over to Sh. Pardeep Kumar. He further deposes that the accused was also got medically examined from the doctor vide application Ex.PW3/A and MLC Ex.PW3/B was obtained. He further deposes that the statements of the witnesses were recorded by him as per their version. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he arrested the accused at the instance of Mulkh Raj, Jagdish Chander and Surinder Kumar. He deposes that when he opened and checked the bag, the Pradhan of the village was called, although he could not come as he was busy owing to the fair. He further deposes that when he reached the spot, the bag was lying by the side of the accused. He further deposes that no chadar/sheet was taken into possession by him.

26. The genesis of the prosecution version is bedrocked upon the testimony of PW-9, inasmuch as it pinpointedly discloses the accused to be the person, who has committed the murder of deceased Sucha Singh. He had seen, as deposed by him, on the fateful date at about 6.30 a.m., a person donning only a vest, lying in the verandah of the Sarai and on his having gone near him, his having noticed blood oozing out from his head and also a stone lying nearby. At that stage, he had also noticed another man lying in the corner of the verandah, who however had covered/masked his face with a Chaddar. However, this witness omitted to uncover/unmasked his face for perceiving or discerning his identity, though on inquiry, the identity of the person who was lying in the vicinity of the deceased in the verandah with his head covered with a Chaddar, had later come to be disclosed to PW-9 by a person, who was standing to catch a bus. The said incognito person divulged to PW-9 that the person with his face covered with a chaddar, lying in the vicinity of the deceased, had proceeded to Amb. Thereafter, his brother PW-10 accompanied by PW-12, boarded a scooter to catch him and nabbed the accused at Kuthera Kherlla. However the testimony of PW-9 corroborated by PW-10, his brother, while purportedly communicating the factum of the accused to be the person who had eliminated the deceased or murdered him is rendered infirm for the reasons (a) The principal prosecution witness PW-9 having omitted to when he visited the site of occurrence and his having noticed the deceased lying in the verandah with blood oozing from his head and his having contemporaneously noticed a man lying in the vicinity of the deceased with his face covered with chaddar, uplift/uncover the shroud or chaddar for discerning as well as perceiving his identity, is a significant omission, hence, the testimony of PW-9 of his having identified the accused in the Court to be the same person, cannot gain credence with this Court. Obviously, the initial opportunity available to PW-9 to perceive and discern the identity of the accused, having rendered unavailed, cannot at all constrain this Court to conclude that the identification of the accused in Court by PW-9, hence carries any formidable conviction. (b) Moreso when the identity of the person, who had disclosed to PW-9, on the asking of PW-9, as to the place where the person who was lying in the vicinity of the deceased had proceeded to, has also remained undisclosed. Hence, when the identity of the person, who on the asking of PW-9, conveyed to the latter the place, where the accused had proceeded to, has remained obscure and camouflaged, it is highly unbelievable that PW-9 could other than his having a mere speculative and imaginative image qua the identity of the accused, carried any concrete image in his mind qua the identity of accused, consequently his having identified the accused in Court, is as such founded on mere conjectures and surmises and cannot be construed to be carrying any veracity. Therefore, the accused cannot be construed to have been identified by any credible evidence on record to be the person, who had committed the murder of the deceased. Even otherwise with the identity of the person, who on the asking of PW-9, revealed to the latter, the identity of the person, who had proceeded to board a bus towards Una, having remained obscure, hence, when both the factum of the initial non perception of the accused for, hence, his physical traits being etched in his mind by unmasking him as also given the fact that the person, who facilitated the nabbing of the accused by PW-9 has remained incognito, as such, the identification of the accused by a obscure person and the further nabbing of the accused by PW-10 and PW-12, is entirely anvilled upon hearsay version/conjectural version qua both the identity of the accused as well as his movement towards Amb. Therefore, a nebulous version qua the identity of the accused as projected by the prosecution is highly incredible. Further more what taints the prosecution version with a stain of falsity is the omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to take into possession the chaddar/sheet, with which the accused had purportedly, while lying in the vicinity of the dead body of the deceased, covered his face, hence, precluding PW-9 to discern and observe his identity. Consequently, omission to take into possession the chaddar with which the accused had covered his face, despite the fact that PW-9 alongwith PW-10 and PW-12 had on intimation given to them by an unknown person of the accused having proceeded to Amb and then having nabbed him at place Kuthera Kherlla, by either the aforesaid or by the Investigating Officer on an information qua the offence having been communicated to the latter, bespeaks the fact of falsity being lent to the deposition of PW-9 of his being deterred or precluded to identify the accused as he had covered his face with a bed sheet/Chaddar. Consequently, with falsity being lent to the said deposition existing in the examination in chief of PW-9, constrains this Court to conclude that he has as a matter of fact had never seen the accused in the vicinity of the deceased. Therefore, it is to be aptly concluded that he has propounded a false story qua the genesis of the occurrence.

27. It is also enigmatic and mysterious that even after the unknown person revealed to PW-9, the identity of the accused, arising from, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, and of his movement to Amb, yet PW-10 and PW-12 both proceeded on a scooter to apprehend the person and did so at place Kuthera Kherlla, even without having intimated the police officials or having solicited the help of the police officials in nabbing the accused. The above enigma comprised in the omission of the prosecution witnesses to intimate or apprise the police about the factum of an unknown person whose conjectural identity and movement was disclosed by an obscure person to be the person, who had committed the alleged offence, percolates into the genesis of the prosecution case and erodes its veracity.

28. PW-12 though had on 5.8.2009 seen the deceased to be in a drunken and staggering condition and to be moving in the vicinity of his Dhaba and thereafter having lied down in the sarai Bhawan has omitt

ed to depose despite the fact that his Dhaba is located in proximity to the site of occurrence qua the factum of the accused lying in the vicinity of the deceased as deposed by PW-9 with his face covered. While imbuing credibility to the testimony of PW-12 and given the fact that there is omission of revelation in the deposition of PW-3 Dr. Rahul Katna, who conducted the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased of his having collected viscera and sent it for analysis to FSL for rendition of an opinion qua its contents, spurs a conclusion that when the collection of viscera at the instance of Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination may have on its collection and transmission to the FSL for analysis conveyed the factum of the deceased having on account of his being heavily inebriated fallen and sustained injuries. Omission of its collection on the part of PW-3 or also omission on the part of Investigating Officer to encourage its collection at the instance of Doctor has precluded from the attention of this Court, any findings by the FSL, whether its contents on examination divulged the fact of the deceased having consumed alcohol or not. Besides, camouflaging of the aforesaid fact and the inertia and indolence of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and omission on the part of Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, constrains this Court to conclude on the strength of deposition of PW-12 that the deceased was heavily inebriated and staggering, which state hence, sequeled his demise. The factum of the accused carrying in his bag blood stained pant Ex. P-1 recovered at the instance of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-12, cannot construed to be a potent link in the chain of circumstances to constitute it to be begetting a conclusion that hence the accused is connected in the offence as alleged, in as much as the manner in which PW-10 and PW-12 apprehended the accused without theirs having a concrete image of his identity, concomitantly, the blood stained pant recovered from his bag at that stage by them, appears to be tainted, more so for the reason that preceding its recovery there is no disclosure statement made by a properly identified accused to the police that he was carrying a pant Ex. P-1 in his bag. Hence, it appears that pant Ex. P-1 stained with blood of the deceased as was oozing out from his head was inserted inside the bag purportedly carried by the accused at the relevant time so as to falsely connect him in the murder of the deceased. It can also be concluded that the blood of the deceased on stone Ex. P-4 as well as on other items, is a sequel to the concerted effort or endeavor on the part of the investigating Officer to after staining them with the blood of the deceased plant them against the accused so as to falsely connect him with the commission of murder of the deceased. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set-aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused/appellant, be refunded to him. Records be sent back.