2021 INSC 0848 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.434­436 OF 2020 JAIKAM KHAN  ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH      .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.442 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437­439 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 440­441 OF 2020  J U D G M E N T   B.R. GAVAI, J.  1. The   present   appeals   arise   out   of   the   common judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   dated   18 th   May, 2018, in Reference No.01 of 2016 and, Capital Case No.602 of   2016   and   Capital   Case   No.844   of   2016,   thereby 2 confirming   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   dated   2 nd January,   2016   and   the   order   of   death   sentence   dated   11 th January, 2016 awarded to original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Bulandshahr.     Vide   the said   impugned   judgment   dated   18 th   May,   2018,   the   High Court   has,   however,   allowed   the   appeal   of   the   original accused   No.2­Nazra   and   set   aside   the   conviction   under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred   to   as   “the   IPC”)   and   the   death   penalty   awarded   to her.  2. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal Nos. 434­436 of 2020   are   filed   by   Jaikam   Khan   (Accused   No.3);   Criminal Appeal   Nos.   437­439   of   2020   are   filed   by   Sajid   (Accused No.4);   and   Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   440­441   of   2020   are   filed by   Momin   Khan   (Accused   No.1);   whereas   Criminal   Appeal No. 442 of 2020 is filed by Ali Sher Khan, the first informant (P.W.1)   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan”) being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of original accused No.2­Nazra.  3 3. Appellant­Momin Khan (A­1), deceased Shaukeen Khan,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   Kallu   Khan   are   the   four sons   of   deceased   Mausam   Khan   (father,   aged   about   85 years)   and   deceased   Asgari   (mother,   aged   about   80   years). Deceased   Shanno   (aged   about   30   years)   is   the   wife   of deceased   Shaukeen   Khan,   whereas   deceased   Samad   (aged about   8   years)   is   the   son   of   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan   and deceased   Muskan   (aged   about   15   years)   is   the   niece   of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan.  4. Appellant­Jaikam Khan (A­3) is the first cousin of deceased Shaukeen Khan, appellant­Momin Khan (A­1) and P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan.     Appellant­Sajid   (A­4)   is   the   son   of appellant­Jaikam Khan (A­3).  Original Accused No.2­Nazra, who   was   convicted   by   the   trial   Court   and   acquitted   by   the High Court, is the wife of appellant­Momin Khan (A­1). 5. It   is   the   prosecution   case   that   deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan were not in good terms   with   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   and   his   wife   Nazra   (A­2). Therefore,   deceased   Mausam   Khan   (father)   had   separated all   the   brothers   and   allotted   their   respective   share   of 4 properties.     The   houses   of   each   one   of   them   were   in   one compound.  Deceased Mausam Khan (father) owned a brick­ kiln.  In the beginning, appellant­Momin Khan (A­1) used to run the brick­kiln, but he did not give the money earned by him   from   the   brick­kiln  to   deceased   Mausam   Khan   (father) and his elder brother, deceased Shaukeen Khan.  Therefore, deceased   Mausam   Khan   (father)   had   dispossessed   Momin Khan   (A­1)   from   the   brick­kiln.     Thereafter,   deceased Mausam   Khan   and   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   were   running   the brick­kiln   with   the   help   of   his   brother   deceased   Shaukeen Khan.  Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4) were jealous with their   growing   business   and   so   a   case   was   also   lodged   for laying   bricks   over   the   disputed   land.     Thereafter   enmity arose between them, and the younger brother Momin Khan (A­1)   joined   the   company   of   his   uncle’s   son   i.e.   Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Jaikam Khan (A­3)’s son Sajid (A­4).  6. On   the   fateful   day   of   the   incident,   i.e.,   23 rd January,   2014,   at   around   8.30   p.m.,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan and   his   brother­in­law,   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   were present   at   home   i.e.   the   place   of   incident.     At   that   time, 5 Momin   Khan   (A­1)   with   his   wife   Nazra   (A­2)   along   with Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4) came armed with knives and   assaulted   Mausam   Khan   (father),   Asgari   (mother), Shaukeen   Khan   (brother),   Shanno   (sister­in­law),   Samad (nephew)   and   Muskan   (niece)   and   killed   them   brutally. P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   his   brother­in­law,   P.W.2­   Jaan Mohammad,   somehow   managed   to   save   their   lives.     On hearing the cries of the deceased and others, many villagers gathered and all four accused fled from the spot through the back­door.  7. Immediately   after   the   incident,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   went   to   Police   Station Narora,   District   Bulandshahr.     On   the   basis   of   the   report given   by   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan,   a   First   Information   Report (F.I.R.)   came   to   be   registered   for   the   offence   punishable under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.     Upon completion   of   the   investigation,   a   charge­sheet   came   to   be filed   before   the   concerned   Judicial   Magistrate.     The   case was committed to the court of Sessions.   6 8. The   trial   Judge   framed   charges   for   the   offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and under Sec ­ tion 25/4 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to   as  “the   Arms  Act”).     The  accused  pleaded  not   guilty   and claimed   to   be   tried.   At   the   conclusion   of   the   trial,   the   trial judge   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   2 nd   January,   2016 convicted   all   the   four   accused   for   the   offence   punishable under   Section   302/34   of   the   IPC   and   sentenced   them   to death vide order dated 11 th  January, 2016.  The appellants­ accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were also convicted for the offence punishable   under   Section   25/4   of   the   Arms   Act   and awarded   rigorous   imprisonment   for   a   term   of   three   years with a fine of Rupees Five Thousand and in case of default, they were to undergo additional imprisonment for a term of three months.   9. The   trial   judge   vide   the   said   order   dated   11 th January,   2016   also   made   a   reference   under   Section   366(1) of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter referred   to   as   “Cr.P.C.”)   to   the   High   Court   vide   Reference 7 No.1   of   2016   for   confirmation   of   the   death   sentence awarded by it.   10. Being aggrieved thereby, all the four accused pre ­ ferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   vide   the   impugned judgment,   dismissed   the   appeals   of   appellants­   accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and confirmed the death sentence awarded to them.  However, the Division Bench of the High Court al ­ lowed   the   appeal   of   the   accused   No.2­Nazra   and   acquitted her of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC.  11. Being   aggrieved   thereby,   Momin   Khan   (A­1), Jaikam Khan (A­3), Sajid (A­4) and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan are before this Court in the present appeals.    12. We   have   heard   Smt.   Nitya   Ramakrishnan, learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   appellant­ Momin   Khan   (A­1)   as   well   as   acquitted   original   accused No.2­Nazra, Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for appellants­Jaikam   Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4),   Shri   Anant Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant­ P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   Shri   Vinod   Diwakar,   learned   Additional   Advocate 8 General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State   of Uttar Pradesh.    13. Smt.   Nitya   Ramakrishnan,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant­Momin   Khan (A­1) would submit  that the  entire case rests on  the  ocular testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad,   who   are   said   to   have   witnessed   the   incident from   the   kitchen   and   the   cattle­shed   of   the   house respectively.   She  submits  that  both   of  them   are  interested witnesses.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has disbelieved   the   evidence   of   these   two   witnesses   insofar   as original accused No.2­Nazra is concerned.  She submits that when   the   ocular   testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   was   found   to   be   not   trustworthy and reliable by the High Court with respect to accused No.2­ Nazra,   the   High   Court   fell   in   grave   error   in   convicting   the other accused on the basis of the very same ocular evidence. 14. Learned Senior  Counsel further submits that the prosecution   has   placed   on   record   three   site­plans   at Exhibits Ka­51, Ka­52 and Ka­45.  It is, however, submitted 9 that   in   none   of   the   site­plans,   the   location   of   the   kitchen and   the   bathroom   (which   is   supposed   to   be   adjacent   to cattle­shed)   has   been   shown.   She   submits   that   as   such, there is a serious doubt, as to whether P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   P.W.2­   Jaan   Mohammad   have   really   witnessed   the incident.     She   further   submits   that   even   if   the   prosecution case   is   to   be   believed,   immediately   after   the   occurrence   of the   incident,   many   villagers   had   assembled   at   the   spot, however,   though   the   statements   of   such   witnesses   were recorded,   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   a   single witness.   She,   therefore,   submits   that   an   adverse   inference needs   to   be   drawn   on   account   of   non­examination   of independent   witnesses,   though   they   were   very   much available.   15. Learned   Senior   Counsel   further   submits   that both P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad have admitted in their evidence that they were possessing mobile phones.     She   submits   that   in   normal   circumstances,   after such   a   dastardly   incident   had   occurred,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad would have informed the 10 Police   about   it   on   their   mobile   phones.     She   submits   that, however, the same has not been done by them.   She further submits that though after recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the wife of Jaikam Khan (A­3) had filed an   application   for   producing   the   Call   Detail   Records (hereinafter referred to as “C.D.Rs.”) of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   the   said   application   was rejected   by   the   trial   judge.     She   submits   that   if   the   said C.D.Rs. would have been placed on record, they would have established the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.  16. She   further   submits   that   the   recovery   of   clothes as   well   as   the   recovery   of   weapons   are   all   farcical.     She submits that from the materials placed on record, it is clear that   the   prosecution   has   not   come   to   the   Court   with   clean hands.     It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the   Arrest Memo/Panchnama (Exhibit Ka­49), the Investigating Officer (I.O.)   had   received   an   information   that   accused   Nos.   1,   3 and 4 were standing at Rajghat Square to go somewhere. On the  basis  of  the  said  information,  the  I.O.  reached  the  said square   and   found   the   said   accused   at   that   spot.     She 11 submits   that   according   to   the   prosecution,   at   around   2.00 a.m.   in   the   morning   on   24 th   January,   2014,   the   said   three accused were arrested.  It is submitted that it is improbable that   the   accused,   after   committing   such   a   heinous   crime, would   remain   in   such   a   close   vicinity   of   the   place   of occurrence.     She   further   submits   that   the   arrest   of   the accused No.2­Nazra, which is shown at around 6.40 a.m., is also farcical.   17. Learned   Senior   Counsel   would   further   submit that   the   trial   court   has   grossly   erred   in   convicting   all   the four   accused   and   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   maintaining and confirming the death sentence against the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. She submits that in any case, neither  the High Court   nor   the   trial   Court   has   given   any   reasons   justifying the award of capital punishment.  She submits that there is not  even a  whisper,  as to  why  there  is  no  possibility   of the accused being reformed or rehabilitated and as to why there is   no   other   alternative   than   to   award   the   capital punishment.   12 18. Shri   Dama   Seshadri   Naidu,   learned   counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4), submits that insofar as the said accused are concerned, the prosecution   story   is   totally   unbelievable.     He   submits   that deceased   Mausam   Khan   and   Zafar   Khan   are   the   sons   of Shakoor Khan.  Jaikam Khan (A­3) is the son of Zafar Khan. He   submits   that   from   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution witnesses,   it   is   clear   that   there   was   a   partition   amongst Zafar Khan and deceased Mausam Khan long time ago. Not only that, but there was a further partition amongst the two branches of the family.   He submits that the testimonies of these   two   witnesses,   i.e.,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­ Jaan   Mohammad,   would   reveal   that   there   is   no   enmity between deceased Mausam Khan, deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan on one side and Jaikam Khan (A­ 3) and Sajid (A ­4) on the other.  The alleged enmity was with Momin Khan (A­1), who belonged to the branch of deceased Mausam  Khan.   He submits that, as such, the prosecution has   utterly   failed   to   prove   any   motive   insofar   as   accused Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned.  13 19. Learned   counsel   submits   that   even   the   evidence of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad was not trustworthy.   Perusal of his   evidence   would   reveal   that   he   does   not   know   anything about the family holdings.   20. Shri Naidu further submitted that the recovery of clothes and weapon is totally farcical.  He submits that it is totally   impossible   that   the   accused   Nos.   3   and   4,   who   are not the members of the family  of Momin Khan (A­1), would keep their bloodstained clothes at the house of Momin Khan (A­1)   after   committing   the   crime.     Learned   counsel   further submits   that   though   fingerprints   were   taken   from   the recovered   articles,   the   fingerprint   expert’s   report   is   not placed on record and, therefore, an adverse inference needs to   be   drawn   against   the   prosecution.     Learned   counsel further   submits   that   all   Forensic   Science   Laboratory (“F.S.L.”   for   short)   reports   are   marked   during   examination under   Section   313   Cr.   P.C.,   which   is   not   permissible.     He submits that, in any case, the said reports are inconclusive. Shri   Naidu   would   further   submit   that   since   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   are   related   witnesses, 14 their   evidence   will   have   to   be   scrutinized   with   greater   care and circumspection and it will not be safe to pass an order of conviction on their sole testimony without there being any corroboration. 21. Shri   Vinod   Diwakar,   learned   Additional  Advocate General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent–State   of Uttar   Pradesh   submitted   that   both   the   trial   court   and   the High   Court   have   concurrently,   on   the   appreciation   of   the evidence,   convicted   the   accused.   He   submits   that   no   error could   be   noticed   in   the   concurrent   findings.     He   submits that merely because kitchen and bathroom are not shown in the site­plans, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the ocular testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad.     He   submitted   that   the   evidence   of   these   two witnesses is corroborated by the F.I.R. 22. Learned   counsel   submitted   that   merely   because there   are   certain   discrepancies   in   the   evidence   of   the witnesses,   it   cannot   be   a   ground   to   disbelieve   the   ocular testimonies   of   the   witnesses,   which   are   otherwise   cogent, reliable   and   trustworthy.     He,   therefore,   submits   that   no 15 interference   is   warranted   in   the   appeals   preferred   at   the behest of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the same deserve to be dismissed.  23. Shri   Anant   Agarwal,   learned   counsel   appearing on  behalf of  P.W.1­Ali Sher   Khan,  would  submit  that  when the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   on   the   basis   of   correct appreciation   of   evidence   convicted   accused   No.2­Nazra, there was no reason for the High Court to reverse the same. 24. The   learned   counsel   for   respective   parties,   while supporting   their   contentions,   have   placed   reliance   on various decisions of this Court.  25. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants, we have scrutinized the entire evidence in depth. Since   the   conviction   of   the   accused   appellants   is   largely based on the ocular testimonies of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   we   find   that   it   will   be   appropriate to reproduce relevant part of their examination­in­chief:  Examination­in­chief of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan “My father had brick­klin and due to the same   brick­klin,   the   accused   ­persons present   in   court   namely   Jaikam   Khan, 16 Shajid,   Nazra   too   bore   enmity.   Nazra   is wife   of   Mobin.   Jaikam   Khan   is   Mobin’s cousin and Sajid is Mobin’s nephew from his taau family.  The   incident   is   of   23th   January,   2014 and   it   was   about   8.30   pm.   on   that   day, my   sister’s   husband   namely   Jaan Mohammad had come at about 2 o’ clock in   afternoon   and   was   present   at   the house   itself   at   the   time   of   the   incident. At   the   time   of   the   incident,   my   father Mausam   Khan,   my   mother   Asgari,   my brother   Shaukeen   Khan,   his   wife   Sanno and his elder brother Saukeen Khan’ son Samad   and   my   niece   Muskan,   my brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   and   I were present at the house. Momin Khan, his wife Nazra, Jaikam Khan and his son Shajid   entered   our   compound   at   about 8.30 pm from the direction of the house of Momin Khan. When I saw them, I was in   the   kitchen   room.   All   these   accused persons   were   holding   knives   in   their hands.   These   four   attacked   my   father with   knife   who   was   sleeping   in   veranda and when they attacked my father then I was   witnessing   it   from   kitchen   room. Hearing hue and cry raised by father, my niece   Muskan   came   running   then   these four   accused   persons   present   in   court ran   behind   her   and   cut   her   also   with knife holding  in their  hands. My  mother and   nephew   Samad   were   also   there   in the   same   veranda   where   Muskan   was attacked.     These   four   accused   persons cut   these   two   also   with   knives.   Hearing this hue and cry, when my elder brother Saukeen came downstairs from upstairs, the accused persons killed him also near 17 the   gate.   My   sister­in­law   Sanno,   who had come downstairs hearing hue & cry, was   killed   by   them   going   upstairs.   My sister­in­law   Sanno   seeing   the   incident occurring downwards (sic.) ran away. My brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   was hiding anywhere in the house saving his life   and   he   had   also   witnessed   the incident.   The   accused   persons   had   fled away after committing the incident. I due to fear could not save the dead persons. After   the   incident,   I   alongwith   my brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   had gone to the police station and lodged the report   at   the   police   station.   The complaint which was given by me at the police station is available on the file and the   same   is   before   me   today   which   I myself   had   written   down   and   had   given at   the   police   station.   It   was   marked   as Ext.   ka­1.   All   six   persons   had   died   on the   spot.     The   accused   persons   present in   court   had   committed   all   murders before   me   which   was   witnessed   by   me while hiding.” Examination­in­chief   of   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad “1   ­   The   incident   took   place   on 23.01.2014. on the day of the incident, I had   come   to   the   house   of   my   father­in­ law Mausam Khan at Pilkhana village at 2 p.m. During the time of the incident, I was   present   at   the   house   of   my   father­ in­law  Mausam  Khan.  The  incident  took place   at   around   8   pm.   I   know   the accused   persons   who   are   present   in   the court namely Jaikam Khan, Sabid Khan, Momeen   Khan   and   Naazra.   I   had   firstly 18 seen the accused persons at the house of my   father­in­law   Mausam   Khan   at   the verandah.   That   time   I   had   come   out   of bathroom   and   first   time   I   had   seen   the accused   persons   from   the   place   where the   buffaloes   are   tethered   and   is adjacent   to  bathroom.   All   these   accused persons   were   holding   knife   and chhuriyan (small knife) in their hands. It would be a distance of 10­15 steps from where I had seen them for the first time. During  the  time  of the  incident,  inverter powered   light   was   on.   I   had   seen   the accused   persons   in   the   light   of   the inverter.  2   ­   My   father­in­law   Mausam   Khan   was offering   Namaz   on   the   cot   at   the verandah.   All   the   accused   persons   who are present in the court started inflicting blows   of   knives   and   chhuriyan   (small knife)   on   Mausam   Khan   and   murdered him. When hearing the voice of Mausam Khan, Muskan came out, then these four persons   ran   behind   her   and   these   four accused   persons   killed   her   in   the verandah.   After   this   they   killed   my mother­in­law   Asgari   and   Samad. Hearing   their   outcry,   Shaukeen   Khan came   down   from   the   roof.   These   four persons   caught   Shaukeen   Khan   and killed   him   too.   When   hearing  the   outcry of   Shaukeen   Khan,   his   wife   Shanno came   down   then   these   four   accused persons   ran   behind   her   on   the   roof   and these   four   killed   her   too   after   going   up on   the   roof.   I   had   seen   all   this   incident under   the   shade   of   the   place   where   the buffaloes   are   tethered   and   is   near   the bathroom. After committing the incident, 19 these   four   accused   persons   had   run away   from   there.   After   these   accused persons   had   run   away   I   came   out   from the   place   where   I   was   hiding   and   my brother­in­law Ali Sher  and  I had raised alarm   after   coming   out   of   the   house. People   of   the   village   had   arrived   on   the alarm   raised   by   us.   We   went   inside   the house   and   saw   that   all   the   people   had died. 3   ­   There   was   a   dispute   over   kiln between   Momeen   Khan   and   my   father­ in­law   Mausam   Khan.   Momeen   wanted to   run   the   kiln   but   my   father­in­law Mausam   Khan   was   not   willing   to   give kiln   to   Momeen.   2­3   years   before   the incident,   Momeen   had   run   the   kiln   and he   had   not   given   statement   of   accounts to   Mausam   Khan.   Mausam   Khan   had taken   the   charge   of   kiln   from   Momeen and for the same reason he was angry. 4   ­   Accused   Sajid   is   the   nephew   of accused   Momeen.   Jaikam   is   the   cousin brother   of   Momin.   Nazra   is   the   wife   of Momin.   The   four   accused   are   from   the same group.” 26. It could thus be seen that according to P.W.1­Ali Sher   Khan,   all   the   four   accused   entered   the   compound   of his   house   at   about   8.30   p.m.     According   to   him,   he   saw them   when   he   was   in   the   kitchen.     All   the   accused   were holding   knives   in   their   hands.     According   to   him,   firstly, 20 they attacked his father Mausam Khan, who was sleeping in the veranda.   He was witnessing the same from the kitchen room.  Hearing a hue and cry raised by his father, his niece Muskan   came   running   and   then   these   four   accused   ran behind   her   and   cut   her   also   with   knives   holding   in   their hands.     His   mother   Asgari   and   nephew   Samad   were   also there in the same veranda where Muskan was attacked. The accused   cut   them   also   with   knives.     Hearing   the   hue   and cry, his elder brother Shaukeen Khan came downstairs from upstairs and the accused killed him also near the gate.  His sister­in­law Shanno, who had come downstairs hearing the hue   and   cry,   was   also   killed   by   them   going   upstairs. According   to   him,   his   brother­in­law,   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad,   was   hiding   elsewhere.     He   further   stated   that all the accused had fled away after committing the murder. After   the  incident,   he   along   with   his  brother­in­law,  P.W.2­ Jaan Mohammad, had gone to the police station and lodged the report.   27. According to P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, on the day of the  incident  i.e.  23 rd   January, 2014, he  had  come  to  the 21 house   of   his   father­in­law   Mausam   Khan   at   2   p.m.     He stated that the incident took place at around 8 p.m.  He had seen the accused at the house of his father­in­law Mausam Khan   in   the   veranda.     That   time,   he   had   come   out   of bathroom   and  first   time   he   had  seen   the  accused   from   the place where the buffaloes are tethered, which is adjacent to the bathroom.   All the accused were holding knives in their hands.     According   to   him,   his   father­in­law   Mausam   Khan was   offering   Namaz   on   the   cot   in   the   veranda.     All   the accused started inflicting blows of knives on Mausam Khan and   murdered   him.   After   hearing   the   voice   of   Mausam Khan,  Muskan came out,  then  the  accused  ran behind  her and   killed   her   in   the   veranda.     Thereafter,   they   killed   his mother­in­law Asgari and Samad.   On hearing their outcry, Shaukeen   Khan   came   down   from   the   roof.     The   accused caught   Shaukeen   Khan   and   killed   him   too.     After   hearing the   cries   of   Shaukeen   Khan,   his   wife   Shanno   came   down, then the accused ran behind her on the roof and killed her too after going up on the roof.  22 28. Both   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad   are   witnesses,   who   are   closely   related   to   the deceased   as   well   as   the   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan.   No doubt that, merely because the witnesses are interested and related   witnesses,   it   cannot   be   a   ground   to   disbelieve   their testimony.  However, the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinised with due care and caution.  Upon scrutiny of the evidence of such witnesses, if the Court is satisfied that the   evidence   is   creditworthy,   then   there   is   no   bar   on   the court in relying on such evidence.   29. For this proposition, we may refer to the following observations of  this  Court in  the  case  of   Piara  Singh   and others v. State of Punjab 1 :    “4.   ….It   is   well   settled   that   the   evidence of   interested   or   inimical   witnesses   is   to be   scrutinised   with   care   but   cannot   be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan   evidence.  If   on   a  perusal  of   the evidence   the   court   is   satisfied   that   the evidence is credit­worthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. …..” 1 (1977) 4 SCC 452 23 30. We may also refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of  Anil Phukan  v.  State of Assam 2 :   “3.   This   case   primarily   hinges   on   the testimony of a single eyewitness Ajoy PW 3.   Indeed,   conviction   can   be   based   on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says   to   the   contrary   provided   the   sole witness   passes   the   test   of   reliability.   So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no diffi ­ culty   in   basing   conviction   on   his   testi ­ mony   alone.   However,   where   the   single eyewitness   is   not   found   to   be   a   wholly reliable   witness,   in   the   sense   that   there are   some   circumstances   which   may show   that   he   could   have   an   interest   in the   prosecution,   then   the   courts   gener ­ ally   insist   upon   some   independent   cor ­ roboration   of   his   testimony,   in   material particulars,   before   recording   conviction. It   is   only   when   the   courts   find   that   the single   eyewitness   is   a   wholly   unreliable witness   that   his   testimony   is   discarded in   toto   and   no   amount   of   corroboration can   cure   that   defect.   It   is   in   the   light   of these settled principles that we shall ex ­ amine the testimony of PW 3 Ajoy. 4.   Ajoy   PW   3,   on   his   own   showing,   is the  nephew  of  the  deceased. He  had  ac ­ companied   the   deceased   to   the   place   of occurrence   when   the   latter   went   to   re ­ cover the loan from Anil, appellant. This 2 (1993) 3 SCC 282 24 witness, therefore, is a relative of the de ­ ceased   and   an   interested   witness.   Of course,   mere   relationship   with   the deceased is no ground to discard  his testimony,   if   it   is   otherwise   found   to be   reliable   and   trustworthy.   In   the normal course of events, a close rela ­ tion   would   be   the   last   person   to spare   the   real   assailant   of   his   uncle and   implicate   a   false   person.   How ­ ever, the possibility that he may also implicate   some   innocent   person along   with   the   real   assailant   cannot be ruled out and therefore, as a mat ­ ter   of   prudence,   we   shall   look   for some   independent   corroboration   of his testimony, to decide about the in ­ volvement   of   the   appellant   in   the crime. Since, there are some doubtful aspects   in   the   conduct   of   Ajoy   PW   3, it would not be safe to accept his evi ­ dence   without   some   independent   cor ­ roboration, direct or circumstantial .” [Emphasis supplied] 31. Undisputedly,   both   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   are   witnesses,   who   are   closely related to the deceased and the accused No.1­Momin Khan. Therefore,   we   find   that   it   will   be   necessary   to   scrutinise their evidence with more care, caution and circumspection. 25 32. Even   if   the   evidence   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   is   taken   at   its   face   value,   the accused have murdered six deceased at different places. As per the admission given by P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the house of the accused No.1­ Momin Khan is 15 steps away from the place   where   he   was   hiding   in   the   compound.   According   to him,   there   are   a   total   of   5   rooms   in   the   house   where   the incident took place. He has stated in his cross­examination that   Shaukeen   Khan   was   murdered   in   the   Angan   of   the house   and   his   father   Mausam   Khan   was   murdered   in   the veranda.     His   niece   Muskan   was   also   murdered   in   the veranda.     His   mother­Asgari   and   nephew   Samad   were murdered   in   the   room   which   is   15   steps   away   from   the kitchen, whereas deceased Shanno was murdered in a room upstairs.   He   has   further   admitted   that   the   aforesaid   room cannot   be   seen   from   the   kitchen   and   the   door   of   the aforesaid room opens towards south.   33. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan’s deposition in his cross­examination.   26 “Site map was prepared by the police on my   pointing.  There  is  a  courtyard in   my house.   There   is   a   room   built   in   the South of the courtyard whose door opens in the courtyard. The room which I have told   in   South   is   a   kitchen.   The   door   of this   kitchen   opens   in   North.   There   is   a gate in Western wall of the courtyard.” 34. It   would   further   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the following   deposition   of   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav,   i.e. the I.O.     “I   had   prepared   site­map   on   the   day   of occurrence   on   24.1.14.   I   had   prepared the   site­map   of   the   scene   of   occurrence at the instance of the case­complainant. I do not remember at what time I started to   prepared   the   site­map.   I   don’t   even remember   how   much   time   I   took   to prepare   the   site­map.   I   don’t   remember at   what   time   I   stopped   preparing   the site­map.   I   don’t   remember   whether   I had   marked   case­complainant’s   hiding place   in   the   site­map   or   not.   This   is correct   to   state   that   the   place,   from where   the   case­complainant   has   stated 27 to   hide   and   see   the   accused   persons,   is not   shown   in   the   site­map.   I   had prepared the site­map of the scene of” 35. A   perusal   of   the   evidence   of   the   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan   and   the   evidence   of   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav would   reveal   that   the   first   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­51)   was prepared   by   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   on   P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan’s pointing out the details.  28 36. It   will   be   appropriate   to   reproduce   all   the   three site­plans, which are as under:  “ 29 30 31 ” 37. It could thus be seen that all the three site­plans (Exhibits   Ka­51,   Ka­52   and   Ka­45)   have   been   prepared   by 32 P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav,   the   I.O.   The   first   site­plan (Exhibit   Ka­51)   was   prepared   on   24 th   January,   2014.     The second   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­52)   was   prepared   on   28 th January,   2014   and   the   third   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­45)   was prepared on 29 th  January, 2014.    38. The   first   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­51)   shows   the places   where   the   dead   bodies   of   the   deceased   were   found. Serial No.1 in the said site­plan is the place where the dead body of deceased Shaukeen Khan was found. Serial No.2 is the   spot   where   the   dead   body   of   deceased   Mausam   Khan was found.   Serial  No.3  is the  spot  where the dead body  of deceased Shanno Begam was found. Serial No.4 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Muskan was found.  Serial No.5 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Asgari was found.     Serial   No.6   is   the   spot   where   the   dead   body   of deceased   Samad   was   found.   The   arrow   marks   in   the   said site­plan show the direction in which the accused fled away from the rear gate.  It is to be seen that in the said site­plan, the room on the southern side is not shown.   33 39. The   second   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­52)   is   with regard   to   the   recovery   of   weapons   made   at   the   instance   of the accused from the field of the deceased Shaukeen Khan.   40. The   third   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­45),   which   is drawn in connection with Case Crime No.26 of 2014 under Section   25/4   of   the   Arms   Act,   also   shows   the   places   from where the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime, were recovered at the instance of the accused.  41. In   the   last   two   site­plans   at   Exhibit   Ka­52   and Exhibit   Ka­45,   a   room   has   been   shown   on   the   southern side.  42. According to the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the   room   in   which   he   hid   himself   in   the   south,   is   the Kitchen.  As per his evidence, the door of the kitchen opens to the north, whereas as per the third site­plan (Exhibit Ka­ 45),   the   gate   of   the   said   room   on   southern   side,   opens towards west.   43. As per the version of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, he has   witnessed   the   incident   from   the   place   where   the buffaloes   are   tethered,   which   is   adjacent   to   the   bathroom. 34 Though   the   bathroom   is   not   shown   in   the   site­plan, believing   it   to   be   adjacent   to   the   place   where   buffaloes   are tethered, it will be in the south­west corner.  44. As   per   the   testimonies   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   firstly   Mausam   Khan   was assaulted   and   done   away   with   in   veranda,   whereas deceased Shaukeen Khan was done away with in the court­ yard.   Deceased Muskan, Asgari and Samad were assaulted in the rooms, which are in the middle portion of the house. According to these witnesses, Shanno Begam was assaulted upstairs.   If   the   version   of   these   two   witnesses   is   compared with   the   site­plans,   then   the   position   that   emerges   would reveal   that   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan,   at   the   most,   could   have witnessed   the   assault   on   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan, whereas   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   could   have   witnessed   the assault on deceased Mausam Khan and deceased Shaukeen Khan.  However, since from the perusal of the first site­plan (Exhibit   Ka­51),   it   could   be   seen   that   the   dead­bodies   of deceased   Muskan,   Samad,   and   Asgari   were   inside   the house,   and   the   dead­body   of   deceased   Shanno   Begam   was 35 upstairs,   it   is   difficult   to   believe   that   these   two   witnesses could   have   also   seen   the   accused   assaulting   Shanno Begam,   Muskan,   Asgari   and   Samad.       It   is   further   to   be noted   that   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   in   his   cross­ examination   has   admitted   that   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   had   not   told   him   about   their hideouts   and   that   is   why   it   was   not   mentioned   in  the   site­ plan.  45. We   are   therefore   of   the   view   that   these   two witnesses cannot be considered to be wholly reliable to base an order of conviction solely on their testimonies.   46. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following observation of this Court in the case of  Vadivelu Thevar & another v. The State of Madras 3 :  “11.….Hence,   in   our   opinion,   it   is   a sound   and   well­established   rule   of   law that   the   court   is   concerned   with   the quality   and   not   with   the   quantity   of   the evidence   necessary   for   proving   or   dis ­ proving   a   fact.   Generally   speaking,   oral testimony   in   this   context   may   be   classi ­ fied into three categories, namely: ( 1 ) Wholly reliable. 3 (1957) SCR 981 36 ( 2 ) Wholly unreliable. ( 3 )   Neither   wholly   reliable   nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion   either   way   —   it   may   convict or may acquit on the testimony of a sin ­ gle witness, if it is found to be above re ­ proach   or   suspicion   of   interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the sec ­ ond   category,   the   court   equally   has   no difficulty   in   coming   to   its   conclusion.   It is in the third category of cases, that the court   has   to   be   circumspect   and   has   to look for corroboration in material partic ­ ulars by reliable testimony, direct or cir ­ cumstantial……” 47. As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   we   are   of   the view that though P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan could have witnessed the   assault   on   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad   could   have   witnessed   the   assault   on   deceased Shaukeen   Khan  and   deceased  Mausam   Khan,   it  is  difficult to believe that they could have witnessed the assault on the other   four   deceased   persons.     We   are   also   of   the   view   that the   said   witnesses   cannot   be   said   to   be   wholly   unreliable. They would fall in the category of ‘neither wholly reliable nor wholly   unreliable’   and   as   such,   we   are   of   the   view   that   a 37 greater degree of care and caution would be required and a corroboration   in   material   particulars   by   reliable   testimony, direct   or   circumstantial,   would   be   necessary   to   pass   an order of conviction.    48. We,   therefore,   find   it   necessary   to   consider   the other circumstances relied on by the prosecution.  The other circumstances,   on   which   the   prosecution   relies,   are   as under: A. Arrest   of   the   accused   immediately   after   the incident;  B. Recovery   of   the   weapons   alleged   to   have   been used in the crime at the instance of the accused. C. Recovery   of   the   bloodstained   clothes   alleged   to have been worn by the accused while committing the crime. D. Motive. We   will   now   deal   with   the   evidence   placed   on behalf   of   the   prosecution   with   regard   to   each   of   the circumstances.  A.  Arrest   of   the   accused   immediately   after   the incident: 49. Insofar as the arrest of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 is concerned,   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   (I.O.),   states 38 that, on the basis of written complaint, Crime No.25 of 2014 came   to   be   registered   for   the   offence   punishable   under Section   302/34   of   the   IPC.     He   stated   that   thereafter,   he immediately reached at the complainant’s house along with the force.  It was crowded there.  He recorded the statement of   the   complainant­P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan.     He   stated   that when   they   were   at   the   scene   of   occurrence   with   the   police force,   they   received   information   through   informer   that   the accused   of   the   aforesaid   case   were   present   at   Rajghat Chauraha looking for a chance to go somewhere.  Relying on this   information,   when   they   reached   at   Rajghat   Chauraha, three   persons   were   there   in   the   passenger   shed.     The informer went away after showing those three men and they arrested them at 2.00 a.m. in the morning of 24 th   January, 2014.     They   revealed   their   names   as   Momin   Khan,   Jaikam Khan and Sajid.   According to him, the accused stated that they   had   committed   those   six   murders   in   association   with Nazra   and   all   the   accused   told   them   that   they   had   thrown away the weapons with which they had committed the crime and   they   could   get   those   recovered.     His   further   evidence 39 states  about   the   recovery   of  those  weapons,  with   which  we will deal later in this judgment.  He further states that when they   were   returning   to   the   police   station   with   accused, leaving   a  few   policemen   behind  at   the   scene   of  occurrence, accused   No.2­Nazra,   met   at   Rajghat   Chauraha,   seeing whom   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   said   that   she   was   his   wife.     She was   arrested   at   6.40   a.m.   and   everyone   was   presented   at the police station at 6.50 a.m. on 24 th  January, 2014.   50. P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan,   in   his   cross­examination, states that he does not know how far the road of Rajghat is from  his house.   He further  states that he cannot say even by guessing.   51. P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   admitted   in   his   cross­ examination that the house of deceased Mausam Khan is at a   distance   of   one   furlong   from   Rajghat   road.     He   further clarified that by one furlong he means half kilometre.   52. It is thus difficult to believe that accused Nos. 1, 3   and   4   were   waiting   at   Rajghat   square,   which   is   at   a distance   of   hardly   half   a   kilometre   from   the   place   of occurrence, waiting for the Police to come and arrest them. 40 The   alleged   informer   has   neither   been   named   nor   has   he been examined.  It is further difficult to believe that accused No.2­Nazra was wandering in the village and coincidently at 6.40   a.m.,   crossed   paths   with   P.W.9­   Brahmesh   Kumar Yadav   (I.O.),   when   he   was   returning   to   the   police   station along with other accused.   53. In  this   respect,  it  will   also   be   relevant   to   refer   to the testimony of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad. “When we went to the police station to get the   report   written,   Momin   and   Nazra,   as well as Jaikam and Sajid were present at the police station.” It   is   thus   clear   admission   of   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad   that   when   he   and   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   had gone to the police station to give the written report, Momin Khan  (A­1), Nazra (A­2), Jaikam  Khan  (A­3) and  Sajid (A­4) were already present there in the police station.   According to the prosecution, the crime is registered on 23 rd   January, 2014   at   10.00   p.m.   when   both   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   were   present.     If   the   version   of P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   that   all   the   four   accused   were present   at   the   police   station   when   they   had   gone   to   lodge 41 the   FIR,   is   to   be   believed,   then   the   arrest   of   the   accused Nos.   1,   3   and   4   at   2.00   a.m.   on   24 th   January,   2014   and arrest of accused No.2 at 6.40 a.m. on the same day, to say the least, is mysterious.   B. Recovery of the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime at the instance of the accused. 54. Insofar  as the  recovery  of the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime at the instance of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the arrest­cum­ recovery memo, which is at Exhibit Ka­49.  55. We have already dealt with this aspect in the said memo with regard to the arrest of the accused.  The relevant part of the said memo reads thus: “The aforesaid three persons were asked about   the   incident,   Momeen   Khan   told that  he had dispute  with his father  over partition.   In   the   beginning   he   used   to run   kiln,   later   on   it   was   given   to Shaukin   Khan.   The   means   of   his livelihood   came   to   an   end,   he   was   in trouble.   Jaikam   and   Sajid   had   enmity with   his   brothers.   Thus   he   took   help   of Jaikam and Sajid and killed his parents and   family   of   Shaukin   in   a   planned manner   after   inflicting   serious   injuries over   their   neck,   head   and   mouth.   They had   thrown   the   knives   at   the   back   of 42 house   and   field   with   which   they   caused the   death.   Accused   told   that   they   could get   the   weapon   used   in   murder recovered.   We   came   to   the   house   of Shaukin   at   Village   Pilkhana   along   with all   the   aforesaid   accused   in   the   hope   of recovery   of   weapon   used.   All   the   three accused   live   in   the   same   compound. Momeen   walked   forward,   entered   the middle   house   where   his   mother   used   to sleep   and   took   out   a   daav   having wooden   handle   around   7   fingers   and blade around 1 balisht 1 finger that was bloodstained   from   the   rubbish   beneath staircase. He handed over the weapon at around   3   am   and   told   that   he   caused death   with   it.    Field  unit  is   on   the   spot, photographs   were   clicked.   Recovery   of weapon   was   made   in   presence   of   public witnesses   Khemkaran   s/o   Tara   Singh, Vilal   s/o   Usman   Khan   r/o   Pilkhana. Another accused Jaikam s/o Jafar Khan walked forward into the field at the back of his house and got a knife measuring 1 balisht   6   fingers   handle   recovered   in presence   of   aforesaid   witnesses   at around   3:15   o'clock   and   stated   that   he caused   death   with   the   same.   Its photograph   was   clicked   and   fingerprint taken   and   after   sometime   fingerprint team   went   away.     After   much   time accused   Sajid   walked   into   the   field behind   the   house   of   Shaukin   and   took out   a   knife   measuring   1   balisht   5 fingers.   Its   blade   is   fitted   with   plastic arc.   He   got   it   recovered   and   stated   that he   caused   death   with   it.   The   three aforesaid knives were bloodstained. Thus blade was wrapped into a cotton, kept in separate clothes, sealed and stamped on 43 the   spot   and   sample   seal   was   prepared. Memo   was   dictated   by   me   to   H.C.P. Sadar   Singh   in   electric   and   torch   light and documents were prepared.” Though the memo shows that the said recoveries were   made   in   the   presence   of   public   witnesses,   no   public witness has been examined to support the same.   It will be relevant   to   refer   to   the   celebrated   judgment   of   the   Privy Council   in   the   case   of   Pulukuri   Kottayya   and   others   v. King Emperor 4 “…..On normal principles of construction their Lordships think that the proviso to S. 26, added by s. 27, should not be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their   Lordships'   view   it   is   fallacious   to treat   the   “fact   discovered”   within   the section   as   equivalent   to   the   object produced;   the   fact   discovered   embraces the   place   from   which   the   object   is produced   and   the   knowledge   of   the accused   as   to   this,   and   the   information given   must   relate   distinctly   to   this   fact. Information   as   to   past   user,   or   the   past history,   of   the   object   produced   is   not related   to   its   discovery   in   the   setting   in which   it   is   discovered.   Information supplied   by   a   person   in   custody   that   “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of   my   house”   does   not   lead   to   the discovery   of   a   knife;   knives   were discovered   many   years   ago.   It   leads   to the   discovery   of   the   fact   that   a   knife   is 4 AIR 1947 PC 67 44 concealed   in   the   house   of   the   informant to   his   knowledge,   and   if   the   knife   is proved   to   have   been   used   in   the commission   of   the   offence,   the   fact discovered  is  very   relevant.  But   if   to   the statement   the   words   be   added   “with which   I   stabbed   A.”,   these   words   are inadmissible   since   they   do   not   relate   to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” 56. As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   since   no public   witness   has   been   examined   to   support   the   said memo,   the   statement   made   therein   will   have   to   be scrutinised   with   greater   caution   and   circumspection.     All the   statements   made   therein   with   regard   to   the   confession of   committing   the   crime   would   not   be   admissible   in evidence.       Only   such   information,   which   distinctly   relates to the discovery of facts will be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian  Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter  referred to as ‘the   Evidence   Act”).     The   evidence   of   P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar  Yadav (I.O.) would  reveal  that   immediately  after   the F.I.R.   was   lodged,   he   had   come   to   the   spot   of   incident   for further investigation. According to him, the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were arrested at around 2.00 a.m. on 24 th  January, 2014.     Even   according   to   him,   the   police   party   was   very 45 much   there   at   the   spot.     One   of   the   alleged   recoveries   is from   the   room   where   deceased   Asgari   used   to   sleep.   The other   two   recoveries   are   from   open   field,   just   behind   the house   of   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan,   i.e.,   the   place   of incident.     It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   recoveries   were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and   as   such,   no   reliance   could   be   placed   on   such recoveries. C. Recovery   of   the   bloodstained   clothes   alleged   to have   been   worn   by   the   accused   while   committing the crime.   57. The   recovery   memo   of   bloodstained   clothes (Exhibit   Ka­34)   also   makes   for   an   interesting   reading. Perusal   of   the   aforesaid   memo   shows   that   the   police   party along   with   three   sons   and   two   daughters   of   the   accused No.1­Momin   Khan   and   accused   No.2­Nazra   came   to   the house   of   the   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan.     At   that   place, Hina   @   Yasmeen,   daughter   of   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan and   accused   No.2­Nazra,   in   the   presence   of   her grandparents,   viz.,   Akhlaq   and   Shakila   and   neighbours 46 Jabbar   and   Kishan   Chandra   and   other   villagers   unlocked her   house   and   took   out   her   things.     At   that   time,   Maumin saw some clothes under the bed in the room.  On seeing the clothes,   many   villagers   identified   and   told   that   the   clothes were   the   same   which   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   and   others   had worn in the evening of 23 rd  January, 2014.  The clothes were identified   separately,   in   which   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   was wearing   jeans   of   blue   colour   and   blue   shirt   having   black and white squares, Jaikam Khan (A­3) was wearing kurta of cream   colour   and   printed   readymade   sweater   of   brown colour,   Sajid   (A­4)   was   wearing   pants   of   light   black   colour and printed shirt of light yellow, red black colour and Nazra (A­2) was wearing printed salwar kurta of light red colour.   58. As   per   the   prosecution   witnesses,   the   accused had run away from the rear gate of the compound, which is towards north.  As per the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the   house   of   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   is   at   a   distance   of   10­15 steps away from the place of the incident.   According to the prosecution   witnesses,   immediately   after   the   incident occurred, many villagers had gathered at the spot.  In these 47 circumstances,   it   is   again   a   mystery   as   to   how   all   the   four accused   fled   from   the   spot,   came   back   at   the   said   spot, changed   their   clothes   and   again   went   away.   It   is   also   a mystery   as   to   how   the   accused   Nos.   3   and   4,   who   are   not residing   in   Momin   Khan’s   (A­1)   house,   had   changed   their clothes   and   kept   them   at   Momin   Khan’s   (A­1)   house.   This coupled   with   the   fact   that   the   F.S.L.   reports   are inconclusive,   creates   a   great   shadow   of   doubt   on   the genuineness   of   the   said   recovery.     In   any   case,   the   said clothes   are   not   recovered   on   the   memorandum   of   the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such, the said circumstance could not have been used against the accused. D. Motive 59. No doubt that, in case of direct evidence and the ocular   testimony   of   the   eye­witness   being   found   to   be trustworthy, reliable and cogent, it will not be necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.  However, in   the   present   case,   as   we   have   already   held   hereinabove, that the testimony of the eye­witnesses could not be said to 48 be   wholly   reliable,   the   motive   aspect   would   be   a   relevant factor.   60. As   per   the   prosecution   version,   the   main   motive behind   the   crime   was   with   regard   to   the   dispute   over   the management   of   the   brick­kiln   between   the   accused   No.1­ Momin   Khan   on   one   hand   and   deceased   Mausam   Khan, deceased   Shaukeen   Khan   and   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   on   the other   hand.   In   the   F.I.R.,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   has   stated that   the   accused   Nos.   3   and   4   were   jealous   with   his business   and   a   case   was   also   lodged   for   laying   bricks   over the   land.     It   is   further   stated   that   since   then,   enmity   grew between  the  family  and younger  brother  Momin  Khan  (A­1) joined   the   company   of   his   uncle’s   son   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3) and Jaikam Khan’s (A­3) son Sajid (A­4).  No doubt, that the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence, however, it will be   relevant   for   scrutinising   the   credibility   of   the   first informant.     Though   in   his   cross­examination,   P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan has stated that Momin Khan (A­1) had a rift with him, the reason for Momin Khan’s (A­1) rift with his parents and   brothers   was,  due  to   him   not   giving  an   account   of  the 49 money   earned   from   brick­kiln   to   them.     He   has   further stated that his father, deceased Mausam Khan, had relieved Momin   Khan   (A­1)  from   the   duty  of   brick­kiln   in   2010   and since   then   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   bore   enmity   against   him.   He has further stated that due to the same brick­kiln, accused Nos.   2,   3   and   4,   viz.,   Nazra,   Jaikam   Khan   and   Sajid respectively, too bore enmity against him.   61. In   his   cross­examination,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan has clearly admitted that it is Momin Khan and family who had   dispute   with   him   over   the   property   of   brick­kiln.     The said dispute was over details of accounts.   He has admitted that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had nothing to do with regard to brick­kiln   of   his   father   deceased   Mausam   Khan.     It   will   be relevant to refer to the original hindi version of the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, which is as under:   “ यह बबात सहह हह कह जयकम व सबाजजद कबा ममेरमे जपितबा ममौसम खबान समे भट्टबा कमे लमेनमे कबा नहह ह थबा |” 62. P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan has categorically admitted in his   cross­examination   that   the   shares   in   the   agricultural land  between  his  father  deceased  Mausam  Khan  and  Zafar 50 Khan,  father  of  Jaikam   Khan  (A­3), were separate.    He has further admitted that the names of Zafar Khan and his four sons have been entered in the records and he has seen that Khatauni was recorded in the name of Zafar’s sons, Jaikam Khan and Yameen.   63. It will also be relevant to refer to the admission of P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   in   his   cross­examination,   which   is as under: “It is correct that Jaikam Khan and Sajid Khan   had   no   dispute   with   Mausam Khan.   It   is   also   correct   that   Jaikam Khan   and   Sajid   Khan   had   no partnership in the Kiln of Mausam Khan and Alisher.” 64. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   alleged   motive,   if any,   is   attributable   to   the   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan. P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   have admitted   that   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4)   had nothing   to   do   with   the   brick­kiln   business   of   deceased Mausam Khan.   They have further admitted that there was no   dispute   with   regard   to   brick­kiln   amongst   his   father deceased   Mausam   Khan   on   one   hand   and   accused   Nos.   3 51 and 4 on the other hand.   It is further to be noted that even according   to   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan,   the   dispute   between   his father   deceased   Mausam   Khan   and   accused   No.1­Momin Khan with regard to brick­kiln took place in the year 2010. Though   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   states   in   his   cross­ examination   that   heated   exchanges   regarding   brick­kiln took   place   between   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   and   his   father deceased Mausam Khan, during last 3­4 years, no incident, which   would   cause   provocation   to   lead   to   such   dastardly act,   has   been   brought   on   record.       On   the   contrary,   he admitted in his cross­examination that though quarrel took place   between   his   father   deceased   Mausam   Khan   and Momin   Khan   (A­1),   no   quarrel   took   place   between   Momin Khan   (A­1),   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan   and   himself.     He further   admitted   that   decisions   were   taken   through   the relatives but Momin Khan (A­1) did not accept it.   65. It could thus be seen that with regard to Jaikam Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4),   the   prosecution   has   utterly failed   to   prove   any   motive   and   has   also   failed   to   prove   any strong motive insofar as Momin Khan (A­1) is concerned.   52 66. The   matter   does   not   end   at   this.   There   are various   other   inconsistencies   and   lacunae   in   the prosecution case.   67. According   to   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­ Jaan Mohammad, a large number of villagers had gathered at   the   spot   after   the   incident.     However,   none   of   the independent   witnesses   have   been   examined   by   the prosecution.  Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution   are   interested   witnesses,   non­examination   of independent   witnesses,   though   available,   would   make   the prosecution   version   doubtful.     Reference   in   this   respect could  be placed  on  the   following  observations  of   this  Court in   the   case   of   State   of   Rajasthan   v.   Teja   Singh   and others 5 : “5.   In regard to the next argument of the appellant's   counsel   that   the   High   Court was   wrong   in   assuming   that   other   vil ­ lagers were sitting  with PWs 6, 7 and 9, assuming   that   it   is   an   error   even   then there   can   be   no   doubt   as   could   be   seen from the prosecution case that other vil ­ lagers whether sitting with PWs 6, 7 and 9 or  not  did  rush  to  the  scene  of  occur ­ rence,   therefore,   it   is   clear   that   apart 5 (2001) 3 SCC 147 53 from   the   said   eyewitnesses   produced   by the   prosecution   many   other   villagers would have at least seen the last part of the   occurrence   including   the   escape   of the   accused   and   the   accused   not   being strangers   to   the   villagers   could   have been   easily   identified   by   them.   By   not examining   those   independent   witnesses, the prosecution has failed to produce the available   independent   corroborative   evi ­ dence   to   support   the   evidence   of   inter ­ ested witnesses, namely, PWs 6, 7 and 9 because   of   which   the   High   Court   was justified   in   drawing   adverse   inference against the prosecution…”  68. The   evidence   of   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav (I.O.) would show that though fingerprints were taken at the spot, the fingerprint expert’s report is not placed on record. Similarly, his  further   evidence  would reveal that  though  he had come to the spot with the dog squad, report of the dog squad   is   also   not   placed   on   record.     In   our   view,   the   said also   casts   a   doubt   with   regard   to   the   genuineness   of   the prosecution case.   69. Apart from that, it could be seen that, though it is the   assertion   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad that they together had gone to the police station to   lodge   the  report,  the   same   has  been   contradicted  by   the 54 evidence   of   P.W.4­Manveer   Singh,   who   was   the   Constable Clerk   at   the   police   station.     He   has   stated   in   his   evidence thus: “The complainant had come at the police station   with  the   written   complaint.   Only Alisher   had   come   to   me   at   the   Police Station   with   the   written   complaint.   No other one had come.” 70. Coupled with the fact that though P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, had mobile phones, they had  not  informed  the  Police  on  phone,  also   casts a  serious doubt   with   regard   to   the   genuineness   of   the   prosecution case.     71. Insofar   as   the   reliance   placed   by   Shri   Vinod Diwakar,   learned   AAG   on   the   burden   not   being   discharged by   the   accused   and   no   explanation   given   by   them   in   their Section   313   Cr.P.C.   statement   is   concerned,   it   is   trite   law that   only   after   the   prosecution   discharges   its   burden   of proving   the   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   the   burden would shift on the accused.    It is not necessary to reiterate this   proposition   of   law.     It     will   suffice   to   refer   to   the 55 following   observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Joydeb Patra and others v. State of West Bengal 6 :  “10.   We   are   afraid,   we   cannot   accept   this submission   of   Mr   Ghosh.   This   Court   has repeatedly   held   that   the   burden   to   prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt   is   on   the   prosecution   and   it   is   only when   this   burden   is   discharged   that   the accused   could   prove   any   fact   within   his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence   Act   to   establish   that   he   was   not guilty.   In   Sucha   Singh   v.   State   of   Pun ­ jab   [(2001)   4   SCC   375   :   2001   SCC   (Cri) 717] this Court held: (SCC p. 381, para 19) “ 19 .   We   pointed   out   that   Section   106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to re ­ lieve   the   prosecution   of   its   burden   to prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused   beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply   to   cases   where   the   prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn re ­ garding   the   existence   of   certain   other facts,   unless   the   accused   by   virtue   of special   knowledge   regarding   such   facts failed   to   offer   any   explanation   which might drive the court to draw a different inference.” Similarly, in   Vikramjit Singh   v.   State of Pun ­ jab   [(2006) 12 SCC 306 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 732]   this   Court   reiterated:   (SCC   p.   313, para 14) “ 14 .   Section   106   of   the   Evidence   Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its   case   beyond   all   reasonable   doubt. Only   when   the   prosecution   case   has 6 (2014) 12 SCC 444 56 been   proved   the   burden   in   regard   to such   facts   which   was   within   the   special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to   the   accused   for   explaining   the   same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the   said   rule   e.g.   where   burden   of   proof may   be   imposed   upon   the   accused   by reason of a statute.”” In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   do   not   find   any merit in the said submissions.   72. While   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   the prosecution   has   failed   to   bring   home   the   guilt   of   the accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   we   are   at   pains   to observe   the   manner   in   which   the   present   case   has   been dealt   with   by   the   trial   court   as   well   as   by   the   High   Court, particularly,  when   the   trial  court   awarded   death  penalty   to the   accused   and   the   High   Court   confirmed   it.     The   trial court and the High Court were expected to exercise a greater degree   of  scrutiny,  care   and  circumspection   while   directing the accused  to be hanged till death.   73. Though   there   are   serious   infirmities   on   various counts   in   the   judgment   of   the   trial   court,   we   refer   to   only one paragraph of the said judgment: 57 “The above mentioned recovery of blood­ stained   clothes   of   the   accused   Momin, Jaikam, Sajid and Nazra also proves the involvement   of   them   in   the   crime.   The above recovery also indicates to this fact that   the   entire   episode   of   the   murders was   a   pre­planned   one   and   that   a comprehensive strategy was chalked out for   it.   All   the   accused   gathered   at   the house   of   the   accused   Momin   prior   to committing   the   murders.   They   already knew   that   on   committing   murders   by sharp   weapons,   the   splashes   of   blood would   hurl   at   their   clothes   because   of which, if they don’t change their clothes, they   would   be   not   be   able   to   hide   their crime   during   being   absconded.   That   is why,   they   had   already   managed additional  clothes for  them  in  the house of   the   accused   Momin.   After   committing the crime, they as per the planning, went to Momin’s  house, changed their clothes and  ran  away.  Opening   the  lock  of  their home   by   sons   and   daughters   of   Momin on   the   third   day   of   the   occurrence   also indicates   that   either   Momin’s   all   sons and daughters were at home at the time of   the   occurrence   and   they  left   from   the house   with   the   accused   after   the occurrence   or   Momin’s   and   Nazra’s   kids were   not   at   all   present   there   in   the house at the time of occurrence and that all   the   kids   were   sent   to   their   grand­ parent’s   house   prior   to   the   occurrence. Since the crime was committed in a well and   pre   –   planned   way,   it   seems   more probable that the kids were sent to their grand­parent’s   home   prior   to   the occurrence.   If   this   probability   is accepted,   the   arrest   of   the   accused 58 Nazra   after   the   occurrence,   and   the arrest of the remaining three accused viz Momin, Sajid and Jaikam at the Rajghat Chauraha   at   2.00   ‘O’   clock   at   night   not taking   place   but   in   the   morning   at   6.30 ‘O’ clock becomes important. It indicates that   Nazra,   after   the   occurrence,   was gone   to   her   kids   for   meeting   them   and delivering   them   the   keys   of   home. Thereafter,   as   per   the   pre­planned program,   she   had   to   reach   the   same Rajghat   Chauraha,   where   the   remaining three accused had already been arrested at   night.   All   the   accused   may   have planned to gather at the same Chauraha and   run   away   together   from   here   and that   is   why,   they   kept   on   waiting   for Nazra at the same place till 2.00 o’ Clock at night. It is impossible because of this reason   also   that   if   the   occurrence   took place around 8.30 pm, the three accused Momin, Zaikam  and Sajid  had  sufficient time after perpetrating this crime, to run away   very   far.   However,   standing   at Rajghat Chauraha till 2.00 am, indicates that they were waiting there for Nazra to come.” 74. To say the least, we are shocked at the aforesaid finding.  The narration makes for an interesting reading as a story.       However,   all   the   observations   are   nothing   but conjectures   and   surmises,   without   there   being   any evidentiary   support   to   them.     It   is   really   surprising,   as   to how   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   could   have   dealt   with 59 the   present   case   in   such   a   casual   manner   when   he   was considering the question of life and death of four accused.    75. At   this   stage,   we   would   like   to   remind   ourselves as well as all the Courts in the country the golden principle to   be   followed   in   criminal   jurisprudence.     This   Court, speaking   through   legendry   H.R.   Khanna,   J.,   in   the   case   of The   State   of   Punjab   v.   Jagir   Singh,   Baljit   Singh   and Karam Singh 7  observed thus: “23.   A   criminal   trial   is   not   like   a   fairy tale   wherein   one   is   free   to   give   flight   to one's   imagination   and   phantasy.   It   con ­ cerns   itself   with   the   question   as   to whether   the   accused   arraigned   at   the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and   is   the   product   of   interplay   of   differ ­ ent   human   emotions.   In   arriving   at   the conclusion   about   the   guilt   of   the   ac ­ cused charged with the commission of a crime,   the   court   has   to   judge   the   evi ­ dence   by   the   yardstick   of   probabilities, its   intrinsic   worth   and   the   animus   of witnesses. Every case in the final analy ­ sis   would   have   to   depend   upon   its   own facts.   Although   the   benefit   of   every   rea ­ sonable doubt should be given to the ac ­ cused, the courts should not at the same time   reject   evidence   which   is   ex   facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanci ­ ful or in the nature of conjectures.” 7 (1974) 3 SCC 277 60 76. We are amazed by the manner in which the High court has dealt with the present matter.   It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of the High Court with regard to the recovery of clothes.   “It has been urged that in order to prove the   recovery   of   the   clothes,   no independent witness was produced. It is correct   that   the   prosecution   only produced the formal witness to prove the recovery,   but   on   the   other   hand   the disclosure   of   this   fact   about   the   room having been opened by the keys provided by Hina, the daughter of accused Momin was   not   rebutted   by   the   defence   which could have been done by producing Hina in order to deny any such recovery.” 77. The finding is not only contrary to the well settled law   interpreting   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act   but   also attempts   to   put   a   burden   on   the   accused,   which   does   not shift   unless   prosecution   has   proved   the   case   beyond reasonable doubt.   78. The   following   observations   of   the   High   Court would also fall in the ambit of conjectures and surmises: “There   is   yet   another   dimension   which deserves   mention   namely,   with   the 61 multiple   nature   of   injuries   and   six persons   being   slaughtered simultaneously,   the   same   cannot   be   an act   of   a   single   assailant.   The   presence, therefore, of the three assailants Momin, Jaikam and Sajid cannot be ruled out as there   is   no   doubt   that   such   nature   of assault   in   the   natural   course   of   things would   be   carried   out   by   more   than   one person.” 79. Another   finding   of   the   High   Court,   which   makes for   an   interesting   reading   and   is   foreign   to   criminal jurisprudence is thus: “The   question   of   motive   in   relation   to Jaikam and Sajid may not be immediate and they being a separate family may be correct.   This   however   by   itself   may   not be   sufficient   to   dilute   the   connection   of Sajid   and   Jaikam   with   Momin.   However on this count, we find that the trial court has raised a presumption about jealousy amongst   the   families   on   account   of Mausam   Khan   having   developed   his business   and   augmented   his   earnings through   a   brick   klin.   This   part   of   the discussion   of   the   trial   court   does   not find   sufficient   corroboration   from   the evidence   on   record,   and   therefore,   the motive   appears   to   be   remote   and   not   a very   strong   motive.   This,   however,   does not   mean   to   say   that   there   was   no connection   with   Jaikam   and   Sajid   with Momin, who did appear to be on friendly terms   and   this   fact   is   reflected   from   the statement   of   the   witnesses   particularly, 62 PW­1   and   PW­2,   where   they   have indicated an attitude of vengeance being present   for   certain   reasons.   Thus   even though   a   strong   motive   may   not   have been   established   and   the   reasonings   of the   trial   court   may   be   a   little   stretched, yet   the   same   would   not   wipe   out   their presence   particularly   when   the   ocular testimony   to   establish   their   presence when the offence was committed.” 80. Further,   it   can   be   seen   that,   the   very   same Judges   of   the   High   Court   refused   to   believe   the   very   same evidence   of   prosecution   witnesses   in   respect   of   accused No.2­Nazra.  The High Court observed thus: “The   arrest   of   Smt.   Nazra   has   been shown   from   a   public   place   in   the morning at about 6.40 am whereas Smt. Nazra   claims   to   be   present   at   the   police station   with   her   children.   There   is   no independent   witness   of   her   arrest.   On cross­examination,   PW­9   the investigating   officer   has   stated   that   he does   not   remember   as   to   whether   Smt. Nazra   was  at   the   police  station  with   her children   or   not.   He   however   denies   her arrest   at   the   police   station.   PW­2   in   his cross­examination   on   20.03.2015   has stated   that   when   he   went   to   the   police station   for   lodging   of   the   first information report, then Momin, Jaikab, Sajid   and   Nazra   were   all   present   at   the police   station.   This   testimony   of   PW­2 corroborates   his   presence   at   the   police station   with   PW­1   informant   who   has 63 admitted   having   gone   to   the   police station   with   his   brother­in­law   PW­2. The   story   of   arrest   of   Nazra   at   6:40   am the   next   day   morning   in   these circumstances   as   set   up   by   the prosecution is therefore clearly doubtful. This   aspect   further   adds   to   the   doubts expressed above.” 81. We   ask   a   question   to   ourselves,   if   the   arrest   of the   accused   No.2­Nazra   was   from   a   public   place,   was   the arrest of the accused Nos. 1, 3 and  4 from  any  other  place than   the   place   from   where   the   accused   No.2­Nazra   was apprehended.     If   according   to   the   High   Court,   there   is   no independent witness of her arrest, is there any independent witness   for   arrest   of   accused   Nos.   1,   3   and   4.     If   on   the basis   of   evidence   of   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   who   has deposed in his cross­examination, that, when he went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R.,   he found Momin Khan (A­1),   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3),   Sajid   (A­4)   and   Nazra   (A­2) present   in   the   police   station,   which,   according   to   the   High Court,   is   corroborated   by   the   testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan   and,   therefore,   the   story   of   arrest   of   Nazra   (A­2)   at 6.40   a.m.   was   found   to   be   unbelievable,   then   how   was   it different from  the  arrest  of  accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which 64 was   shown   to   be   at   2.00   a.m.   on   24 th   January,   2016,   i.e., much   after   the   time   of   lodging   the   F.I.R.       The   High   Court further goes on to have an academic discussion with regard to   the   possibility,   preponderance   of   probability,   a   scientist conducting   his   experiments   with   great   care,   choosing between two or more possibilities, and preponderates of one over the other, etc.  The law, however, that is fully settled, is that,   it   is   the   duty   of   the   prosecution   to   prove   the   case beyond reasonable doubt.   82. We   may   gainfully   refer   to   the   following observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Anand Ramachandra   Chougule   v.   Sidarai   Laxman   Chougala and others 8 : “10 .   The   burden   lies   on   the   prosecution   to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused   has   only   to   create   a   doubt   about the prosecution case and the probability of its   defence.   An   accused   is   not   required   to establish   or   prove   his   defence   beyond   all reasonable   doubt,   unlike   the   prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is ma ­ terial   in   support   of   such   defence,   the   ac ­ 8 (2019) 8 SCC 50 65 cused is not required to prove anything fur ­ ther.   The   benefit   of   doubt   must   follow   un ­ less   the   prosecution   is   able   to   prove   its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 11 .   The   fact   that   a   defence   may   not   have been   taken   by   an   accused   under   Section 313   CrPC   again   cannot   absolve   the   prose ­ cution from proving its case beyond all rea ­ sonable doubt. If there are materials which the   prosecution   is   unable   to   answer,   the weakness   in   the   defence   taken   cannot   be ­ come   the   strength   of   the   prosecution   to claim   that   in   the  circumstances  it  was  not required   to   prove   anything.   In   Sunil Kundu   v.   State   of   Jharkhand   [ Sunil Kundu   v.   State of Jharkhand , (2013) 4 SCC 422   :   (2013)   2   SCC   (Cri)   427]   ,   this   Court observed : (SCC pp. 433­34, para 28) “ 28 .   …   When   the   prosecution   is   not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt   it   cannot   take   advantage   of   the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence. It is well set ­ tled   that   the   prosecution   must   stand   or fall  on   its   own   feet.   It  cannot   draw   sup ­ port from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case be ­ yond reasonable doubt.”” 83. We,   therefore,   find   that   the   prosecution   has utterly   failed   to   prove   the   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt. The conviction and death sentence imposed on the accused is totally unsustainable in law.    66 Insofar   as   the   appeal   filed   by   the   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan   with   regard   to   acquittal   of   accused   No.2­Nazra   is concerned, it is sans any merit.   84. In the result: (a) Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   440­441   of   2020   filed   by Momin   Khan   (Accused   No.1);   Criminal   Appeal Nos.   434­436   of   2020   filed   by   Jaikam   Khan (Accused   No.3);   and   Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   437­ 439   of   2020   filed   by   Sajid   (Accused   No.4)   are allowed; (b) Momin   Khan   (Accused   No.1),   Jaikam   Khan (Accused   No.3)   and   Sajid   (Accused   No.4)   are directed   to   be   released   forthwith,   if   not   required in any other offence.  (c) Criminal   Appeal   No.   442   of   2020   filed   by   P.W.1­ Ali Sher Khan, is dismissed. 85. The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   the   above   terms. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.    86. Before   we   part   with   the   judgment,   we   must appreciate   the   valuable   assistance   rendered   by   Smt.   Nitya 67 Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1 as well as acquitted original accused No.2, Shri   Dama   Seshadri   Naidu,   learned   counsel   for   accused Nos.   3   and   4,   and   Shri   Vinod   Diwakar,   learned   Additional Advocate   General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Uttar Pradesh. …….…....................., J.                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …….…....................., J.                                                  [B.R. GAVAI] …….…....................., J.                                             [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2021