HARDEEPversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

A                                HARDEEP
                                    v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

                                AUGUST 16, 2002

B                 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]


        Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 304 Part-1-Murder-
  Conviction-Trial Court convicting accused under Section 304 Part-I but
C acquitting his father holding that he was falsely implicated-High Court
  upholding conviction of accused but converting it to one under Section 302
  and maintaining acquittal of his father-On appeal held, witness to motive
  of dispute, eye witnesses to murder all related inter se and to deceased-
  Discrepancy regarding time of occurrence of incident and presence of
  witnesses at the time of assault-False implication of the father subsequently
D acquitted by High Court-Hence conviction of accused set aside-Evidence
  Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 8.

          Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3:

          Evidence-Appreciation of-Not in a mechanical way-If accused
E person implicated by eye-witness is acquitted, it is not necessary that others
  must also be acquitted-Similarly if an eye-witness who alleges to have seen
  the occurrence and if there is no contradiction in his statement reliance
    thereon cannot mechanically be placed-It depends on other facts and
    circumstances of the case also like broad features of prosecution story,
    probabilities and normal course of human conduct.
F
          Evidence-Discrepancies and contradictions-To what extent fatal to
    the prosecution case-Discussed.

          Criminal Trial:

G         Prosecution case-If all links and limbs weak-They cannot make out
    a strong case by putting them together.

          According to the prosecution, dispute arose between appellant-accused
    and one R since appellant did not pay back the amount borrowed from him. R
    was murdered few days later. Appellant and his son were accused of murdering
H   R. It was alleged that father of appellant caught hold of deceased and his son
                                         556
                     HARDEEP v. ST ATE OF HAR YANA                          557
stabbed on the chest of R resulting in his death. Demand of return of the loan     A
amount was stated to be the motive, though appellant's father was not party to
the transaction. Deceased's nephew was the only witness as regards the
motive. All other prosecution witnesses claiming to be eye-witness to the
murder were related inter se and to deceased. There was discrepancy in the
time of occurrence of incident. Also the presence of witnesses at the time of      B
assault was doubted. Trial Court relying on the prosecution case and the
testimony of the eye-witnesses, convicted appellant under Section 304 Part I
IPC but acquitted his father on the ground that he was falsely implicated. High
Court upheld the conviction of appellant but converted the offence to one under
Section 302 IPC and maintained the acquittal of his father. Hence the present
appeals. Appellant contended that evidence of the same witnesses who had           C
equally implicated the appellant's father could not be basis of conviction of
appellant once it was found that his father was falsely implicated in the case.

      Allowing the appeals, the Court

      HELD: 1. In criminal cases Court cannot proceed to consider evidence         D
of prosecution witnesses in a mechanical way. The broad features of
prosecution case, probabilities and normal course of human conduct of a
prudent person are some of the factors which are always kept in mind while
evaluating the merit of a case. No fixed formula can be adopted that in case
some of the accused persons implicated by the eye-witnesses have been
acquitted, others must also be necessarily acquitted nor that whatever be the      E
facts and circumstances of the case but in case an eye-witness states to have
seen the occurrence without contradictions in his own statement, must always
be believed and acted upon. More particularly, where circumstances warrant
application of due care and caution in appreciating the statements of the
witnesses as has been observed by the Trial Court itself coupled with the fact     p
that all witnesses are related inter se and to the deceased.
                                                          [563-G-H; 564-A-B)

       2.1. Every contradiction or discrepancy may not IH!cessarily be fatal to
the prosecution case but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the
case. Such discrepancies and contradictions have to be seen in the background      G
of probabilities of the prosecution story and veracity of prosecution witnesses.
In case evidence of prosecution witnesses is above board and unimpeachable
and inspires confidence, in that event discrepancies and contradictions here
and there may have no value at all. [566-C-D]

     2.2. There is finding of false implication of appellant's father. This        H
    558                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A impairs character ofprosecution witnesses as unimpeachable witnesses more
    so in view of glaring contradictions with the statement of PW I. 1566-D-El

          3.1. If all links and limbs of the prosecution case are weak, they cannot
    make out a strong case by putting them together. If one link is weak, the
    other stronger limbs of the prosecution case may make up for the weakness
B   but it is not so in the instant case. 1566-F)

          3.2. In the instant case for the purposes of proving motive to commit
    the crime, prosecution relied on the evidence of witness from their own family
    -nephew of complainant and deceased-even though at that time, quite a good
C   number of people were available. [566-E-F)

           3.3. Appellant's father hardly had any occasion to join his son in
    committing the murder since his son never wanted to pay back the amount
    borrowed. It appears highly improbable that a father would catch hold of a
    person from behind to facilitate his son to stab him right on the chest over a
D   trivial issue. Also, no father will allow his son to commit murder at the young
    age when he has only passed out high school and get him condemned for whole
    life. [564-D-F)

           3.4. The statement of PW-5 makes the presence of witnesses at the
    crucial time of the assault, doubtful. Also the fact that the victim had raised
E   an alarm after the assault had taken place. Margin of time for prosecution
    witnesses who alleged to have arrived at the time of the incident is also very
    thin. In all the probability they might not have arrived from a distance of 200/
    250 feet after the alarm was heard, as the incident must have occurred in
    twinkling of an eye. Further according to the medical report there was only
    one injury on chest, besides other on the palm, which would not have taken
F   any time to be inflicted. (564-G, H; 565-A)

          3.5. According to PW-3, he started by three wheeler at 8.30 a.m. for
    lodging the report and met ASI on the way at about 10.00 a.m. In the usual
    course, he may have arrived at police station before 9.00 a.m. as the distance
G   is only 6 kilometers whereas he reached much later. PW-10 ASI sent the
    report to police station at 10.45 a.m. leaving instructions to fetch photographer
    for taking photographs of the dead body at the spot. Whereas as per the
    photographer he got instructions to go to the spot at 8.30 a.m and he arrived
    in a police jeep at about 9.00 a.m where he found PW-10 at the spot According
    to the prosecution case at the time police vehicle was sent to bring
H   photographer at 8.30 a.m., the incident should have been taking place in the
           HARDEEP v. STATE OF HARY ANA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                  559
village. Further the report was taken down at 10.30 a.m. and thereafter it was      A
sent to police station but before that time photographer was instructed to go
to the spot for taking photographs. Prosecution did not choose to cross
examine the photographer, who has indicated the time of arrival of the police
jeep at his place to take him to the spot at 8.30 a.m. It emerges that there is
an effort to make up for the time to make it appear that the incident occurred
at 8.30 a.m. This discrepancy lends support to the suggestions made that the        B
incident took place sometimes in the wee hours of the darkness before the
day break and nobody could see the incident, therefore, all this time was
consumed and utilized to implicate the father and the son. (565-D-H; 566-A-q

     3.6. On the whole, the prosecution case does not inspire confidence.           C
Rather all facts and circumstances, discrepancies and false implication of
appellant's father lead to the inference that prosecution case in all probability
may be false. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the
appellant is set aside. [566-H; 567-A, BJ

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 257-                     D
259 of 200 !.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Crl.A.No. 463-DBA/92, Crl. R. No. 680 and Crl.A. No. 277-SB
of 1992.
                                                                                    B
    Mrs. Anish Ahlawat, Mrs. Sudha Pal, Rajiv Kumar Dubey and Mohit
Madan, for Mrs. Rani Chhabra, for the Appellant.

         Jai Prakash Dhanda and Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, for the Respondent for
State.
                                                                                    F
         Ravindra Bana, for the Respondent No. 2.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Maha Singh and the appellant Hardeep, father
and son respectively, have been prosecuted for murder of one Rajinder Singh.        G
The Sessions Court on trial of the case acquitted Maha Singh but convicted
the present appellant Hardeep under Section 304 Part-IIPC and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.200, in default whereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two months.                                                                     H
    560                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A         Aggrieved by the said order, Hardeep filed an appeal to the High Court
    against his conviction and sentence and the State of Punjab filed an appeal
    against the acquittal of Maha Singh as well as against acquittal of Hardeep
    under Section 302 IPC in place whereof he had been convicted under Section
    304 Part-I !PC as indicated earlier. A revision was also preferred by Baljeet
B   Sing against the said order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court
    by order dated September 20, 2000 allowed the appeal of the State and
    convicted the appellant l-Iardeep under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him
    to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 500 and in default whereof
    a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal preferred
    by the State against the acquittal of Maha Singh and one preferred by the
C   present appellant against his conviction, both have been dismissed. The
    order of the High Court also observed that Criminal Revision No.680of1992
    also stood disposed of. The appellant Hardeep challenges the above said
    order of his conviction in this appeal.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Avinish
D   Ahlawat, and also Mr. Jai Prakash Dhanda appearing for the State as well as
    Mr. Ravindra Bana appearing for respondent no.2. We have also perused the
    record of the case.

          The prosecution case is that the appellant Hardeep had taken a loan of
E   Rs. 250 from the deceased Rajinder Singh. On 28.2.1991 while celebrating the
    festival of Holi, Rajinder Singh asked Hardeep to repay the loan amount.
    Hardeep is said to have taken ill of it resulting in a quarrel between Hardeep
    and Rajinder Singh, which, however, subsided on intervention of PW-8
    Shamsher Singh. The prosecution case further is that Hardeep said that he
    would clear the account with.in three or four days. According to PW-3 Baljit
F   Singh, the deceased Rajinder Singh told him about the quarrel that had taken
    place on the Holi day upon which Baljit Singh approached Maha Singh, the
    father of Hardeep and told him that Hardeep should pay back the amount of
    Rs. 250 to Rajinder Singh. Maha Singh, however, is said to have sided with
    his son. According to PW-3 Baljit Singh, he had also informed Maha Singh
G   about the quarrel which had taken place between Rajinder Singh and Hardeep
    a few days earlier in the presence of Shamsher Singh. This constitutes the
    motive for Hardeep to commit the murder of Rajinder Singh as per the
    prosecution case.

         The incident in question took place on 4.3 .1991 at about 8.30 in the
H   morning in village Mehmoodpur, police station Gohana, District Sonepat.
                  HARDEEP v. STATE OF HARYANA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                    561
          According to PW-3 Baljit Singh, the brother of the deceased, he was returning     A
          to his bethak after answering the call of nature, as he .reached near the house
          of Maha Singh, he saw his brother going towards Johar taking his cattle when
          Maha Singh and Hardeep came from their cattle shed and pounced upon
          Rajinder Singh. Maha Singh is alleged to have caught hold ofRajinder Singh
          from behind and Hardeep gave knife blows on the left side of the flank of
          Rajinder Singh. The accused persons ran away after striking the knife blows       B
          and Rajinder Singh fell down and died on the spot. On the alarm raised by
          Rajinder Singh "Mar Dia Mar Dia" PW-5 Bijender and PW-6 Azad Singh had
          also arrived and seen the occurrence.


...              PW-3 Baljeet Singh, leaving PW-5 Bijender and PW-6 Azad Singh at the
          spot with the dead body of Rajincier Singh, proceeded to police station
                                                                                            C

          Gohana to lodge the report. He went by a three wheeler. On way, however,
          he met PW-10 Kali Ram AS! of police station Gohana at Mehmoodpur crossing
          at about 10.00 a.m. PW-IO Kali Ram ASI recorded the statement ofPW-3 Baljit
          Singh at Mehmoodpur turning itself and sent the written report to the police
          station at about 10.45 a.m., whereafter he proceeded to the spot. Before          D
          leaving Mehmoodpur, he left instructions to call the photographer at the spot
          for taking photographs of the dead body. After interrogating witnesses under
          Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-IO Kali Ram ASI completed the other formalities of
          the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against Hardeep and Maha Singh.
          It may be mentioned here that a special report was made available to the SDM,     E
          Gohana around 2.25 p.m. though he was available in Gohana itself.

                 The prosecution had examined PW-3 Baljit Singh, PW-5 Bijender and
           PW-6 Azad Singh as three eye-witnesses to the incident. Baljit Singh is the
          real brother of the deceased Rajinder Singh, Azad Singh is their Bhanja,
           Bijender is their cousin being the son of their real uncle Mansa Ram as per      F

-
          the statement of PW-3 Baljit Singh. PW-8 Shamsher Singh is witness of
          motive in whose presence the dispute is said to have taken place between
          Rajinder Singh and Hardeep. Shamsher Singh is also nephew of Baljit Singh
      '   being son of his another real brother Karan Singh. PW-IO is the investigating
          Officer, namely, Kali Ram ASI, Gohana. PW-4 Dr. C.D. Sharma, Medical Officer,
          Civil Hospital, Gohana conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead          G
          body of Rajinder Singh and found an incised wound 4.9 ems x 1.8 cm over
          front of left side of chest. Its medial end was 6.1 ems from midstema~ line and
          the lateral end was 7 .2 ems inferamedial to left nipple. He found yet another
          incised wound 1.2 cm x .4 cm muscle deep over front of left forearm 9.6 ems
          above left elbow. In the opinion of the doctor injury no. I was sufficient to     H
    562                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   cause death within 5 to 10 minutes in the normal course of the nature. PW-
    1' Jagdish Chander is the photographer who had taken photographs of the
    dead bOdy. Apart from the above noted witnesses, some other formal witnesses
    were examined, who are in all eleven in number.

         So far the defence is concerned, according to the statement of the
B accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and from the suggestions made to the
  witnesses is that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to ill-will
  entertained by the ·complainant and the members of his family and further it
  is their case that Rajinder Singh had many reasons to have several enemies
  who may have committed the murder sometime in the wee hours, which was
C riot witnessed by anyone and the dead body having been found lying in the
  morning, the matter had been reported to the police after the due consultations
  involving the appellant and his father both. Apart from the other suggestions
  made, it has been suggested to PW-3 in the end of the cross-examination
  reply whereof is quoted below :

D               "It is incorrect to suggest that in the early hours of 4.3.1991 we
            found the dead body ofRajinder Singh lying in the street. It is also
          . incorrect to suggest that first of all we tried to make inquiry ourselves
            about the murder and then I went to Gohana and consulted my
            brother Raj Singh and then in consultation and deliberations with him
            because of influence on the police, made out the case against the
E           accused on account of . . . "

          A similar suggestion was made to Bijender that murder took place
    sometime in the night and detected after the day break. It being a blind murder
    the accused persons have been falsely implicated.

F          The Trial Court while believing the prosecution case and the eye-
    witnesses, convicted the present appellant Hardeep under Section 304 Part-
    I IPC but acquitted Maha Singh holding that he was falsely implicated in the
    case. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but converted
    it to under Section 302 IPC.It also maintained the acquittal of Maha Singh.
G   But we find that the High Court hardly tried to consider the merit of the case
    but mechanically observed that there was no reason to interfere with the
    findings of the lower court. Learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia
    vehemently urged that the evidence of the same witnesses who had equally
    implicated Maha Singh could not be basis of the conviction of the appellant
    once it was found that Maha Singh was falsely implicated in the case. In the
H   later part of the order of the Trial Court no doubt it is observed that benefit
        HARDEEP v. STATE OF HARYANA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                      563

of doubt was being given to Maha Singh but the finding.as recorded by the            A
Trial Court are to the following effect :

            "So far Maha Singh accused is concerned, he was neither a party
        to said advance nor a guarantor of his son Hardeep. Moreover, the
        circumstances of the case do not show that on 4.3.1991 he should
        have also helped Hardeep his spn in inflicting only one stab would           B
        on the person of Rajinder Singh, which Rajinder Singh alone could do
        himself in twinkling of an eye. According to the prosecution Maha
        Singh had taken Rajinder Singh in his embrace from his back and
        Hardeep accused gave a knife blow on the left hand side flank of
        Rajinder Singh by standing in front of the deceased. If this is taken        C
        to be true for arguments sake in that eventuality Maha Sing could not
        escape an injury on his person when Hardeep had given a knife blow
        to Rajinder Singh because Rajinder Singh had also sustained one
        scratch i.e. superficial wound on his left arm from the knife which
        resulted in injury no. I on the person of Rajinder Singh, as is evident
        from the medical evidence and also from the statement of Bijender            D
        Singh PW. Therefore, it appears that Maha Singh has been roped in
        this case falsely so that he may not pursue the case of his only son
        to save him in this case. It may be mentioned here that in India
        generally there is a tendency to rope in an innocent person also with
        the guilty one, and involvement of Maha Singh accused in this case           E
        appears to be the result of the tendency."

       At another place the Trial Court observed, on his attention being drawn
to the fact that photographer had reached the spot at 9.00 a.m. whereas
according to the Investigating Officer AS! Kali Ram, the photographer was
sent for at 10.30 a.m., it cannot be a ground to believe the defence version         F
that the crime was committed in the dark hours and the accused persons were
implicated after consultation and in so far it related to the submission regarding
delay in lodging the FIR, it has been observed that only requirement would
be to scrutinise the evidence of prosecution witnesses with care and caution.

      In the background of what has been indicated above, we may now G
proceed to consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant
Mrs. Avinish Ahlawat on merit. In this connection it may be observed, in the
criminal cases the Court cannot proceed to consider the evidence of :he
prosecution witnesses in a mechanical way. The broad features of the
prosecution case, the probabilities and normal course of human conduct of
a prudent person are some of the factors which are always kept in mind while H
    564                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   evaluating the merit of the case. No fixed formula can be adopted that in case
    some of the accused persons implicated by the eye-witnesses. have been
    acquitted, therefore, others must also be necessarily acquitted nor that whatever
    be the facts and circumstances of the case but in case an eye-witness states
    to have seen the occurrence sans contradictions in his own statement, must
    always be believed and acted upon. More particularly, where the circumstances
B   warrant application of due care and caution in appreciating the statements of
    the witnesses, as in this case observed by the Trial Court itself, coupled with
    the fact that all the witnesses with no exception are related inter-se and to
    the deceased.

C         For the purposes of proving the motive to commit the crime, the episode
    which occurred on 28.2.1991, the only witness which the prosecution could
    get hold of is none-else but PW-8 Shamsher Singh, who happens to be the
    son of brother of the deceased and the complainant Baljit Singh. Normally,
    at the time the Holi is being celebrated, quite a good number of people will
    be available. Next, the Trial Court has rightly observed that father of the
D   appellant would hardly have any occasion to join his son in commission of
    murder of Rajinder Singh for the reason that Hardeep did not want to pay
    back the amount borrowed by him from Rajinder Singh. It is not that father
    and son could never join in commission of crimes but normally those would
    be the cases where there may be some family property disputes or any kind
E   of party bandi between two rival groups or rioting or the incident of like
    nature. It appears highly improbable that Maha Singh would catch hold of the
    deceased from behind to facilitate his son to stab him right on the chest, for
    the only reason that Rajinder Singh wanted repayment of Rs. 250 advanced
    by him to Hardeep. Nothing seems to have taken place between 28.2.1991
    when quarrel taken place between Hardeep and Rajinder Singh and 4.3.1991
F   when the incident occurred. It does not appeal to the reason that for this kind
    of a dispute the father w!ll allO\yhis son to commit murder at the young age
    when he has only passed out ;high school and get his son condemned for
    whole life. We then find that all the three eye-witnesses are closely related
    as indicated earlier.
G         We find that according to the PW-5 Bijender, he was talking to Azad
    Singh at about 8.30 a.m. when they heard the alarm raised by Rajinder Singh
    "Mar Diya Mar Di ya". They were about 200/250 feet away from the place of
    incident. He further states that at the time Maha Singh had caught hold of
    Rajinder Singh from behind, they were about 20 feet away from them. This
H   statement makes their presence at the crucial time, doubtful. According to the
             HARDEEPv. STATE OF HARYANA [BRJJESH KUMAR, l.)                      565

     medical report virtually there is only one injury on chest, besides other on       A
     the palm, which would not take any time to be inflicted and it has rightly been
     observed by the Trial Court that injury may have been caused in twinkling
     of an eye. The victim had raised an alarm "Mar Diya Mar Diya" that is to say
     after the assault had taken place, it at least casts serious doubt about the
     presence of the witnesses at the time of the assault. It is to be kept in mind
     that their testimony is to be scrutinised with caution due to the background       B
      indicated earlier particular for roping in of the father of the appellant, Maha
     Singh who has been acquitted.

.
•            Next we come to the question about the time of the incident and it may
     have to be seen as to whether it is possible to hold without any shadow of C
     doubt that the time of incident is 8.30 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution. In
     this connection, it is to be noted that according to the statement of PW-3


-•   Baljit Singh, he had proceeded for the police station Gohanafrom the spot
     where the incident had taken place at 8.30 a.m and dead body was lying,
     leaving behind the PW-5 and PW-6, namely, Bijender and Azad Singh. The
     distance of the police station is about 6 kilometers. PW-3 Baljit Singh had D
     gone to the police station by a three wheeler. He happened to meet PW-10
     Kali Ram, ASI, police station Gohana on the way at Mehmoo\lpur turning. It
     was at about 10.00 a.m. that PW-3 and PW-10 met there. PW-10 Kali Ram, ASI
     had recorded his statement at I0.30 a.m. Normally, it would not take more than
      15 to 20 minutes to travel the distance by a three wheeler between the place E
     of occurrence and Mehmoodpur, which may be hardly 5 kilometers or less.
     But unusually it took about I-and a half hours for PW-3 to cover the distance.
     It is then to be noted that PW-10 Kali Ram after writing the statement of PW-
     3 Baljit Singh sent the report to the police station at 10.45 a.m. leaving
     instructions to fetch the photographer for taking photographs of the dead
     body at the spot. In this way, in the normal course the photographer should F
     have reached the spot well after or around 11.30 a.m., as he must have been
     informed by someone and then he would have proceeded for the place of
     occurrence. PW-I Jagdish Chander, the photographer on the other hand tells
     a different story. According to him he got instructions to go to the spot at
     8.30 a.m. A police jeep had gone to take him to the spot from his house by G
     which he arrived there at about 9.00 a.m. On his arrival he found PW-10 Kali
     Ram, ASI at the spot. According to the prosecution case as put forward at
     the time a police vehicle was sent to bring the photographer at 8.30 a.m., at
     that time the incident should have been taking place in the village. Further
     the report was taken down at I 0.30 a.m. and thereafter it was sent to the police
     station but before that time the photographer was instructed to go to the spot H
    566                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. l S.C.R.

A   for talcing the photographs. The prosecution did not choose to cross examine
    the phot~grapher, who has indicated the time of arrival of the police jeep at
    his place to talce him to the spot as 8.30 a.m. All that emerges from the facts··
     indicated above is that, there is an effort to make up for the time to make it
    appear that the incident occurred at 8.30 a.m. It is certain by the statement
B   of the PW-3 that he had started by three wheeler at 8.30 a.m. for lodging the
    report and ASI had met him at Mehmoodpur turning. In the usual course, he
    may arrived at the police station before 9.00 a.m. as the distant is only 6
    kilometers. This discrepancy lends support to the suggestions made by the
    defence that the incident took place sometimes in the wee hours of the
    darkness before the day break and nobody could see the incident, therefore,
C   all this time was consumed and utilised to implicate the father and son both.
    It is true, as observed by the Trial Court every contradiction or discrepancy
    may not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case but it all depends on the
     facts and circumstances of the case, such discrepancies and contradictions
    have to be seen in the background of probabilities of the prosecution story
    and veracity of the prosecution witnesses. In case evidence of prosecution
D   witnesses is above board and unimpeachable and inspires confidence, in that
    event discrepancies and contradictions here and there may have no value at          •
                                                                                        '

    all but in the case in hand we find that there is finding of false implication
    of Maha Singh the father of the present appellant. This itself impairs their
    character as unimpeachable witnesses more so in view of glaring contradictions
E   with the statement of PW I Jagdish. Again we find that none but only the
    brother, the nephew the bhanja and the cousin all within first degree of
    relationship had been examined on the points of material facts of the case.
    Even for the purposes of proving the fact of motive they had to rely on the
    evidence of a witness from their own family, namely, PW-8 Shamsher Singh
    who is nephew of the complainant and the deceased. If all links and limbs of
F   the prosecution case are weak, they cannot make out a strong case by putting
    them together. If one link is weak, the other stronger limbs of the prosecution
    case may IJ!ake up for the weaknesses but not in the case like this. We have
    already observed in the earlier part of this judgment that margin of time for
    the prosecution witnesses who alleged to have arrived at the time of the
G   incident is also very thin. In all probability they might not have arrived from
    a distance of200/250 feet after the alarm was heard "Mar Diya Mar Diya" as
    the incident according the Trial Court, as observed and rightly, must have
    occurred in twinkling of an eye. The circumstances indicated above throw a          ·,
    serious doubt about time of occurrence and presence of witnesses at that
    time. On the whole the prosecution case does not inspire confidence to
H   believe that the prosecution story must be true. Rather all facts and
        HARDEEPv. STATE OF HARYANA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.)                  567
circumstances, discrepancies and false implication of one of the accused, who A
is none else but the father of the appellant and the observations in that regard
made by the Trial Court lead to the inference that prosecution case in all
probability may be false.

      In view of the discussion held above, we allow the appeal and set aside '
the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. He shall be released· B
unlesswanted in connection with any other case.

NJ.                                                       Appeals allowed. ·