Farooq Alias Ashish Habib Parmar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 1. both the aforesaid criminal appeals as well as criminal revision applications have been preferred because of conviction of some of the accused; it is submitted by them that prosecution has failed to prove the case, beyond reasonable doubts, against accused no. l, 2 and 3 and, therefore, criminal appeal filed by the state as well as criminal revision application filed by the original complainant deserve to be dismissed. when eye-witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution and when he has opportunity to meet the prosecution witnesses, in his best judgement, he has dropped the witnesses. 54. the above statement of pw 17, therefore, clearly depicts that a-2 was brought by the police to forensic science laboratory (fsl), madhuban, for the lie detention test on 24-9-2001 and when she conversed with him the police party went away. however, even the exclusion of extra-judicial confession made by a-2 before pw 17 would be of no help to this accused as we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against a-2 on the basis of circumstantial evidence enumerated above as well as extra-judicial confession made by a-2 before pw 48. from the aforesaid judgement, it is clear that confessional statement given by the accused during police custody is hit by section 26 of indian evidence act, 1872. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. 1, 2 & 3. prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused nos. looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused no.d.n. patel, j.1. both the aforesaid criminal appeals as well as criminal revision applications have been preferred because of conviction of some of the accused; acquittal of some of the accused; for, expunging the remarks against the learned special public prosecutor. criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998 has been preferred by the original complainant against the judgement and order of acquittal of some of the accused, which has been passed by learned additional sessions judge, kheda at nadiad dated 6th july, 1998 in sessions case nos. 82 of 1997 and 133 of 1997.2. criminal appeal no. 630 of 1998 has been preferred by the original accused nos. 4 and 5 as they are convicted for life imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000/-. accused nos. 1,2,3 and 6 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. therefore, state has preferred an acquittal appeal bearing criminal appeal no. 803 of 1998 against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 only. there is no appeal preferred by the state against acquittal of accused no. 6. criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 has been preferred by the state for expunging remarks against special public prosecutor appointed by the state, especially in para-102 onwards in the judgement passed by the trial court and criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998 has been preferred by the original complainant against the judgement and order of acquittal passed in sessions case no. 82 of 1997 (registered against accused nos. 1 and 2) and in sessions case no. 133 of 1997 (registered against accused nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6) by learned additional sessions judge, kheda at nadiad.3. if the facts of the prosecution are un folded, they are summarised, in short, as under:it is a case of the prosecution that on 31st may, 1996 at about 9:45 a.m., prafulkumar bhikhubhai patel was assaulted. knife injuries were caused by the accused. this incident was seen by some of the eye-witnesses i.e. p.w. nos. 4, 5 and 7. there is also allegation of conspiracy. investigation was carried out and these accused were arrested and charge-sheeted. sessions case no. 82 of 1997 was instituted against accused nos. 1 and 2, whereas, sessions case no. 133 of 1997 was instituted against accused nos. 3,4, 5 and 6. two accused have not yet been arrested, as per case of the prosecution. incident had taken place in city of nadiad. upon evidence, accused nos. 4 and 5 have been convicted, whereas, rest of the accused have been acquitted.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that accused no. 4 has expired during the pendency of the appeal before this court. therefore, this conviction appeal is left out only for accused no. 5 and acquittal appeal preferred only for accused nos. l, 2 and 3. criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998 is preferred by the original complainant and another criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 is preferred for expunging remarks against the special public prosecutor.5. we have heard learned counsel mr. j.m. panchal for the appellants in criminal appeal no. 630 of 1998 (conviction appeal) and on behalf of respondents of criminal appeal no. 803 of 1998 (acquittal appeal) and on behalf of the respondents in both criminal revision applications. it is submitted by them that prosecution has failed to prove the case, beyond reasonable doubts, against accused no. 5. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. there is no live link between accused no. 5 and death of the deceased. there is no evidence at all against accused no. 5, much less, by eye-witnesses - (p.w. nos. 4, 5 and 7) or by p.w. nos. 9, 12 and 13. all these witnesses have turned hostile. in fact, there is no eye-witness nor. panchas have seen the drawing of the panchnama. neither any of the weapon has been recovered. even so called test identification parade as alleged by the prosecution, is not proving the guilt of accused no. 5 and, therefore, judgement and order passed by the trial court convicting accused no. 5 deserves to be quashed and set aside.6. learned counsel for the accused submitted that prosecution has given an application below exh-75. learned counsel for the accused nos. 1,2 & 3 submitted that there is no evidence against these accused. no prosecution witnesses have linked them with an offence. accused no. 2 is a lady accused and is a wife of business man. learned counsel for accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 submitted in detail that loan amount taken by them from natpur co-op. bank ltd. nadiad, and detailed payment schedule and withdrawal of the amount has been stated by them and, therefore, it is submitted that withdrawal of the amount has nothing to do with the payment of the money to the other co-accused. this aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the trial court and, therefore, they have been rightly acquitted for all the charges levelled against accused nos. l, 2 and 3 and, therefore, the order of acquittal may not be altered, quashed and set aside.7. looking to the overall evidence taken on record, no eye-witnesses or panch-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even if, the dropped witnesses have been examined, it would not have been helpful to the prosecution because none of them is an eye-witness. it is also submitted that conversation between husband and wife i.e. accused nos. 2 and 3 is also privileged communication, as per indian evidence act, 1872. therefore, even if payment slip would have been brought on record, it would not be helpful to the prosecution. learned counsel for the appellants-accused has also narrated, in detail, about the evidence recorded and submitted that no error has been committed by the trial court in acquitting accused nos. l, 2 and 3 and, therefore, criminal appeal filed by the state as well as criminal revision application filed by the original complainant deserve to be dismissed.8. we have heard learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the state in criminal appeal no. 803 of 1998, which has been preferred against the acquittal of accused nos. l, 2 & 3, who has mainly submitted that even if the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, then also, there is sufficient material on record, which proves the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused nos. l, 2 & 3. on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there is an allegation of conspiracy against the accused nos. l, 2 & 3. these accused have hatched conspiracy to cause death of the deceased. likewise, it is submitted by learned additional public prosecutor that though panch witnesses have turned hostile, with the help of police witnesses, panchnama of scene of offence, seizure of the maruti car, recovery of several items from the house of accused no. 3, offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and, therefore, order of acquittal against accused nos. l, 2 & 3 deserves to be quashed and set aside.9. learned additional public prosecutor submitted that accused nos. 4 and 5 are the persons, who are engaged by accused nos. l, 2 & 3. when accused nos. 4 and 5 have been convicted by the trial court, accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 ought to have been convicted mainly because they are the persons, who hatched the conspiracy and hired accused nos. 4 and 5. it is submitted by learned additional public prosecutor that the trial court has passed several remarks against special public prosecutor appointed by the state, running from para- 102 onwards in the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court. in fact, witnesses were dropped and that is the main reason for criticizing special public prosecutor. learned additional public prosecutor pointed out from the memo of criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 that the dropping of the witnesses have been fully explained and there are convincing reasons for prosecution for dropping them and, therefore, remarks passed in impugned judgement and order deserve to be expunged. special public prosecutor is a navigator. there is no comment of mala fide against the special public prosecutor. it depends upon wisdom of special public prosecutor, as to who are to be examined and who are to be dropped. when eye-witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution and when he has opportunity to meet the prosecution witnesses, in his best judgement, he has dropped the witnesses. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court, and, therefore, remarks passed against the learned special public prosecutor in the impugned judgement and order deserve to be expunged.10. we have heard learned counsel appearing for the original complainant in criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998, who submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence laid down by the prosecution against accused nos. 1 to 3. though eye-witnesses have turned hostile, there is enough evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused nos. 1 to 3. in fact, because of conspiracy hatched by accused nos. 1 to 3, accused nos. 4 and 5 were hired to commit murder of the deceased. learned counsel for the original complainant further submitted that there are no justifiable reason for dropping witnesses. had the witnesses been examined as stated in both the charge-sheets, truth would have come out and all the accused would have been adequately punished and, therefore, criminal revision application may be allowed.11. we have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the evidence on record. learned counsel for both the sides have read and re-read evidence of the various prosecution witnesses. p.w. no. 1 is dr. shantiswarup ramjidas, who is examined at exh-16, is a doctor at utkarsh hospital. it has been stated by him that he had examined prafulbhai, who was semi-conscious and, three injuries were observed by him as stated in his deposition. he examined prafulbhai on 31st may, 1996. incident had taken place on 31st may, 1996 at 9:45 a.m. in the city of nadiad. it is stated by this witness that prafulbhai had stated to him that some persons alighted from maruti car and assaulted him. no name of any person was given by prafulbhai, who expired later on. no narration of any accused was given to him. there were three incised wounds and, thereafter, he advised to shift the patient to v.s. hospital or heart hospital at nadiad.12. p.w. no. 2 - kiranbhai bhikhubhai patel, is examined at exh-19, who is a brother of the deceased. looking to the deposition of this witness, it appears that he is not supporting the case of the prosecution. so far as connection of accused with the offence is concerned, he is not an eye-witness at all. he has no knowledge about the accused. he is the original complainant, who has filed f.i.r. on 31st may, 1996 at 14-15 hours (exh-20). looking to f.i.r., it has been stated that three persons came in maruti car and they assaulted prafulbhai and caused injuries by sharp cutting instrument and, thereafter, ran away. thereafter, his brother was taken to mission hospital at nadiad and, thereafter, his brother was transferred to v.s. hospital at ahmedabad. on the basis of hearsay evidence, f.i.r. was filed.13. p.w. no. 3- shri kishan ishwarbhai marwadi exh-21, is a painter and who has painted number plate, which was found to be fake on the vehicle, which is used in committing murder. he identified accused no. 4 in test identification parade and as per his deposition, accused no. 4 had come for preparing number plate of maruti car. accused no. 5 was not been identified by this witness. looking to the cross-examination of this witness, it has been stated in cross-examination especially in para-9 that this witness had opportunity to see accused no. 4, prior to holding of test identification parade. even otherwise also accused no. 4 has expired and for accused no. 4, criminal appeal no. 630 of 1998 has been abated and, therefore, we are concerned only with accused no. 5 in criminal appeal no. 630 of 1998 and as per deposition of this witness, it has been stated by him that 3 to 4 persons had come in maruti van, but, he has identified only accused no. 4. thus, accused no. 5 was not identified by this witness.14. prosecution has examined p.w. no. 4-nayankumar chandrakantbhai amin at exh-22. looking to his deposition, he is not supporting the case of the prosecution. it is alleged by the prosecution that this witness is an eye-witness. likewise, prosecution has examined p.w. no. 5- jitendrakumar suryakantbhai at exh-23. it is alleged by prosecution that he is an eye-witness, but, he is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. he knows only the fact that prafulbhai was assaulted on 31st may, 1996, but, he is not saying anything about any accused, who has assaulted the deceased.15. likewise, prosecution has examined kamleshbhai indubhai, p.w. no. 7 at exh-27, who is also alleged to have been an eye-witness, but, he has not supported the prosecution case. he has stated in his deposition that there was a mob. he was present in the mob. prafulbhai sustained injuries and taken to the hospital. with the help of these witnesses i.e. p.w. nos. 4, 5 and 7, nothing is coming out against the accused. prosecution has examined dr. dilipbhai desai, p.w. no. 6 at exh-24, who has carried out postmortem of the deceased (exh-26), who has narrated that the deceased had sustained several incised wounds. all the injuries were anti mortem and the death is homicidal death. it is stated by learned counsel for the accused that they are not objecting so far as homicidal death is concerned, but, there is no live link between the accused and the offence.16. the prosecution has heavily relied upon the deposition of dr. shivratnama lalitkumar vaya - p.w. no. 8, examined at exh-28. this witness is serving as assistant director in forensic science laboratory, ahmedabad and has stated that accused no. 2 was brought to her on 11th june, 1996 by the police officer of nadiad town police station. accused no. 2 was asked several questions by this witness including question that accused no. 2 is ready for lie detector test. it is stated in para nos. 2 and 3 that accused no. 2 was not ready and has never consented for lie detector test. thus, from para nos. 2 and 3, it appears that accused no. 2 was brought in police custody and she was not ready to undergo lie detector test. it is stated by this witness that after some assurance given by this witness to accused no. 2, accused no. 2 was ready for lie detector test on 12th june, 1996 on which date also, this accused no. 2 was brought by police officer of nadiad town police station. it is stated by this witness that accused no. 2 has given confessional statement, therefore, much reliance is placed by prosecution stating that this confession before independent witness, which is dated 12th june, 1996. exh-32 is a list of questions prepared by this witness for asking the accused no. 2. exh-33 is a graph, which is recorded during the lie detector test. exh-34 is opinion given by p.w. no. 8. looking to deposition given by this witness, it appears that accused no. 2 was brought on 11th june, 1996 by police officer of nadiad town police station. she was interrogated on the same day as she was not willing to undergo lie detector test. she was taken back by police officer of nadiad town police station. she was brought with police officer on 12th june, 1996 again, for lie detector test. for any reason, she has given statement at exh-37. thus, police custody was constant from 11th june, 1996 to 12th june, 1996. with a view to shield this police custody, she was arrested on 12th june, 1996. learned counsel for accused no. 5 has heavily relied upon decision rendered by hon'ble supreme court in the case of ram singh v. sonia and ors. reported in : 2007crilj1642 , read as under:54. the above statement of pw 17, therefore, clearly depicts that a-2 was brought by the police to forensic science laboratory (fsl), madhuban, for the lie detention test on 24-9-2001 and when she conversed with him the police party went away. on her saying, a-2 was taken by the police for lunch and thereafter brought back to fsl. as lie detention test (ldt) was not possible on 24th september, a-2 was again brought to fsl by the police on 25th september on which day ldt was conducted.55. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submits that temporary disappearance of the police from the, scene leaving the accused in charge of a private individual does not terminate his custody and, therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by a-2 to pw 17 having been made in police custody is admissible as it is hit by section 26 of the evidence act which provides that any confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall not be proved as against such person. in support of his submission, reliance has been placed on kishore chand v. state of h.p. : 1990crilj2289 .57. indisputably, a-2 was arrested on 19-9-2001 and on 24th and 25th september when he was taken for ldt he was in police custody and it was at that point of time he made extra-judicial confession to pw 17 at which point of time police personnel went away from the scene temporarily. therefore, in the light of the decision rendered in kishore chand we are of the opinion that extra-judicial confession made by a-2 to pw 17 is hit by section 26 of the evidence act, it having been made by a-2 while in police custody and, consequently, cannot be admitted into evidence and, therefore, has to be eschewed from consideration. however, even the exclusion of extra-judicial confession made by a-2 before pw 17 would be of no help to this accused as we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against a-2 on the basis of circumstantial evidence enumerated above as well as extra-judicial confession made by a-2 before pw 48.from the aforesaid judgement, it is clear that confessional statement given by the accused during police custody is hit by section 26 of indian evidence act, 1872. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. confessional statement given by accused during police custody is violative of section 26 of the indian evidence act, 1872, which reads as under:26. confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. - no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.in view of the aforesaid section, exh-31 was reduced in writing when accused no. 2 was in police custody. it is submitted by learned additional public prosecutor that police was not present, when the statement was recorded, and, therefore, there was temporary absence of police during recording time of confessional statement and, hence, confession of accused no. 2 'can be considered by the trial court for convicting the accused. this contention is not accepted by this court for the reason that as per section 26 of the indian evidence act, 1872, even if police is temporarily away from the room, in which, confessional statement is given by accused no. 2, still accused is said to be in police custody. temporary absenteeism of the police never ousts, the police custody and, therefore, confession at exh-31 given by accused no. 2 during police custody is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused with an offence. looking to the evidence at exh-34, there are several conclusions arrived at by this p.w. no. 8, which had never been stated by accused no. 2, neither in any confession nor in reply of the question at exh-32. how this witness p.w. no. 8 has added facts in exh-34, while giving her opinion, has not been explained by this witness.17. as a cumulative effect of these two facts, namely confessional statement made during police custody and added facts in her opinion at exh-34, we are of the opinion that both these documentary evidences at exh-31 and 34, do not connect the accused with an offence.18. prosecution has also examined pravinkumar indravan pandya - p.w. no. 9 at exh-35, who is panch witness of exh-36 and 37. looking to the deposition of this witness, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. likewise, bhupendrabhai babubhai patel - p.w. no. 12 was also examined as panch witness, has also not supported the prosecution case. likewise, chandubhai raval - p.w. no. 13 who was examined as panch-witness at exh-57 for panchnama of recovery of maruti car, has also not supported the prosecution case. prosecution has also heavily relied upon indiraben ambalal arya - p.w. no. 11, who is examined at exh-42. she is executive magistrate, who carried out test identification parade for identification of accused no. 5. it is submitted by learned counsel for accused no. 5 that for proving panchnama, panch-witness has not been examined. the panchnama is not a substantive piece of evidence. even, before holding of this test identification parade, p.w. no. 3 witness had an opportunity to see accused no. 4. looking to the overall evidence on record, this witness is a witness of procedure. this panchnama is not a substantive piece of evidence. it can corroborate the main evidence and as stated hereinabove, no eye witness has supported case of prosecution and there is no, recovery of any weapon. other panch witnesses have also turned hostile. no blood stains on the clothes of the accused, as per the prosecution. thus, even if the case of the prosecution is taken at its highest pitch, it is only a corroborative piece of evidence. in absence of substantive evidence, this panchnama is of little value for connecting accused no. 5 with the offence, beyond reasonable doubt. p.w. nos. 5 and 7 have turned hostile, who, according to prosecution, identified accused no. 5 and, therefore, this panchnama is not helpful to the prosecution for proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt against accused no. 5.19. it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-accused that in first test identification parade, which was held on 28th april, 1997, p.w. no. 3 could not identify accused no. 5. thus, much reliance has been placed upon p.w. no. 3- kishan ishwarbhai marwadi and trial court has found him a trustworthy witness, as per the conclusion arrived by the trial court, who is unable to identify accused no. 5. even as per p.w. no. 11, who is executive magistrate, accused no. 5 was not identified by kishanbhai ishwarbhai marwadi. this witness, who is found trustworthy by the trial court, is unable to connect accused no. 5 with the offence, whereas, rest of the witnesses, who have identified accused no. 5 namely p.w. nos. 5 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case. likewise, p.w. no. 4 nayankumar chandrakantbhai amin has also not identified accused no. 5. thus, in test identification parade, which was held on 28th april, 1997, p.w. nos. 3 and 4 could not identify accused no. 5. so far as accused no. 4 is concerned, appeal is abated because of his death during the pendency of the appeal. otherwise also looking to the cumulative depositions of the prosecution witnesses, conviction could not have been based solely upon test identification parade, which is not supported by a person, who has identified the accused. it is only a corroborative piece of evidence and only with the help f. p.w. no. 11 i.e. executive magistrate, who is a witness of procedure, it cannot be said that offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused no. 5. this aspect of the matter-' has not been properly appreciated by the trial court.20. looking to the deposition given by p.w. nos. 12 and 13 i.e. bhupendrabhai babubhai patel and chandubhai raval, they have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. they are panch-witnesses of panchnama of scene of offence and panchnama of recovery of maruti car. left out witnesses are police witnesses. it appears that p.w. no. 15 abhay singh labubhai vaghela, who has carried out investigation along with p.w. no. 16, prakashchandra vyas and ultimately investigation was carried out by p.w. nos. 17 and 18. looking to overall depositions of the prosecution witnesses, neither eye-witnesses nor panch-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, so far as accused no. 5 is concerned. p.w. no. 11 is executive magistrate and rest of the witnesses are police witnesses i.e. p.w. nos. 15 to 18. as stated hereinabove, the only circumstance against accused no. 5 is test identification parade on the basis of deposition of p.w. no. 11. this is the highest case of the prosecution. in view of the aforesaid facts and evidence recorded during the trial, there is no direct evidence against accused no. 5 connecting him with the offence. looking to the circumstantial evidence against accused no. 5 as observed in para-170 of the judgement of the trial court that there are eight circumstances, with the help of which, common intention between accused nos. 4 and 5 is inferred, but, as stated hereinabove, p.w. no. 3 is unable to identify accused no. 5 in test identification parade. likewise, p.w. no. 4 is also unable to identify accused no. 5. p.w. nos. 5 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. all these circumstances have not been appreciated by the trial court. presence of p.w. nos. 4 and 5 at the scene of offence is not proved by the prosecution. neither the weapon is recovered nor blood stained clothes of accused no. 5 have been recovered. no witness says that accused no. 5 was present at the scene of offence on 31st may, 1996 at morning hours. conclusion referred in para-170 is dehors the facts and evidence established by the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.21. learned additional public prosecutor submitted that accused no. 1 has shown place of scene of offence which is circumstantial evidence. this' is the only circumstance against accused no. 5, but, looking to the totality of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the place of scene of offence was known to every body. in scene of offence panchnama at exh-56, wheel marks of vehicle is referred. during investigation', maruti vehicle was recovered, but, wheel marks of this vehicle has not been checked by investigating officer, whether could be of the same vehicle.22. it has been observed by the trial court in para-175 that several conclusion for convicting accused no. 5. as per this conclusion also, it appears that there is no direct evidence against accused no. 5. as stated hereinabove, most of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case except executive magistrate and police witnesses. as stated hereinabove, accused no. 5 was not identified by p.w. nos. 3 and 4 and other eye-witnesses have turned hostile. trial court has relied upon p.w. no. 3, who is found to be trustworthy, but, his evidence is not connecting accused no. 5 with an offence. as per deposition of executive magistrate, p.w. no. 11, this witness i.e. p.w. no. 3 could not identify accused no. 5. thus, neither weapon is recovered nor blood stained recovered on the clothes of accused no. 5. eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, so far as accused no. 5 is concerned. all these circumstances have not been properly appreciated while recording conclusion in para-175 in the judgement and order by the trial court. only on the basis of panchnama of test identification parade and that too, only with the help of executive magistrate much emphasis is given. this is not substantive piece of evidence. it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. in view of these facts and reasons, conviction of accused no. 5 as held by the trial court is hereby quashed and set aside.23. so far as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, there is an appeal preferred by the state against their acquittal. for these accused also as stated hereinabove, no eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution case and, therefore, conclusion arrived at by the trial court by appreciating the evidence is absolutely true and correct and no error has been committed by the trial court in acquitting accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. it is the case of the prosecution that there was conspiracy hatched by this accused and they hired accused nos. 4, 5 and other accused, who have not been arrested, but, as stated hereinabove, there is no evidence, connecting accused nos. 1 to 3 with the offence. there is no live link between accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 with accused nos. 4 and 5. on the contrary, looking to the submission made by accused no. 2, she has given in detail explanation about withdrawal of the amount for the payment of the loan. it appears that accused no. 2 is a wife of business man. there are also entries about payment of loan to natpur co-op. bank ltd. criminal revision application has been preferred by the state bearing criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 for expunging remarks against learned special public prosecutor made by the trial court from para 102 onwards in the impugned judgement and order. it appears that several links are missing in the case of the prosecution. witnesses sometime support the prosecution case and sometime they do not. learned public prosecutor is a navigator of the case. learned public prosecutor has to choose, which witnesses are to be examined and which witnesses are to be dropped. looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, given one by one, enough explanation is given in criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 for not examining the witnesses. even brother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution. he stated in his deposition that he came to know about the whole incident from other persons and on the hear say evidence, he has lodged the complaint. one by one other eye-witnesses have also turned hostile. some of the witnesses are employees of the accused and, therefore, they are not examined by learned special public prosecutor. the reasons given in criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 are cogent enough for expunging remarks against the learned special public prosecutor made by the trial court, while deciding the sessions case. learned additional public prosecutor has taken this court to the statement of the witnesses. it has been stated that some of the witnesses have not referred anything about the conspiracy in their statement recorded by the police under section 161. looking to the reasons given in para-11 in criminal revision application, it is stated by learned additional public prosecutor that had witness jitubhai ravjibhai, who is close relative of the deceased, been examined, he would not have supported the case of the prosecution. on the contrary, definitely he could have caused- damage to the prosecution case. likewise, other witnesses have also been referred by the trial court, who are not examined because some or the other way, they are connected with the accused as employees, etc.24. in view of these circumstances and looking to overall case of prosecution, it was not warranted for the trial court to pass remarks against the learned special public prosecutor in para-102 onwards in its judgement and order. even eye-witnesses, who are p.w. nos. 4, 5 and 7, who were close to the deceased, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. in this set of circumstances, learned special public prosecutor had, wisely not examined rest of the witnesses, otherwise, whatever evidence collected by the .prosecution, could have been destroyed by them, during his cross-examination in the trial court. this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial court.25. we have also perused, in detail, the prosecution case and evidence of witnesses, who are not examined. we are of the opinion that had these witnesses been examined by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution could not have been carried further and, therefore, remarks made against learned special public prosecutor in para-156 and 175(iii) are hereby quashed and they are expunged. thus, criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 is hereby allowed and remarks against learned special public prosecutor in the aforesaid paras are hereby expunged. criminal appeal no. 803 of 1998, which is preferred by the state against acquittal of accused nos. l, 2 & 3 is hereby dismissed for want of proof against accused nos. 1, 2 & 3. prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused nos. 1, 2 & 3. criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998 preferred by the original complainant, is also hereby dismissed. looking to these criminal revision applications, state has preferred acquittal appeal against accused nos. l, 2 & 3 and, therefore, so far as these accused are concerned. criminal revision application deserves to be dismissed. now, the only question left out for this court is whether this court should remand the matter for rewriting of the judgement, on the basis of improper appreciation of the evidence. looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused no. 5. eye-witnesses have turned hostile and panch-wit-nesses have not supported the prosecution case. in conclusion in para-175 of the judgement and order, much reliance is placed upon p.w. no. 3. this witness is a painter of number plate, which is fake number plate of maruti car, but, this witness has not identified accused no. 5. there is no ambiguity in his deposition. even p.w. no. 11, who is, executive magistrate, has also stated that accused no. 5 was not identified by p.w. nos. 4 and 5, who are eye-witnesses. thus, a clear evidence was laid before the trial court and, therefore, we are not inclined to remand the matter to the trial court. likewise, witnesses, who are not examined by the prosecution, for which, dropping pursis was also filed. most of the witnesses, who are dropped, are closely associated with accused and some of them are employees of the accused. it appears from the totality of the circumstances of the case, whatever evidence was collected by the prosecution could have been damaged by the dropped-witnesses, if they would have been examined by learned special public prosecutor in his opinion. even close relatives of the deceased, who were with deceased, have not supported the prosecution case. about one dozen years have lapsed after occurrence of the incident, and so we are not inclined to remand the matter for reappreciation before the trial court and, therefore. criminal revision application is hereby dismissed. thus, criminal appeal no. 630 of 1998 is allowed. as appellant no. 1 (accused no. 4) has expired, this criminal appeal is abated for him, therefore, this criminal appeal survives only for appellant no. 2 (accused no. 5), and it is hereby allowed. accused no. 5 is hereby acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. appellant no. 2 (original accused no. 5) was already granted bail by this court, therefore, his ball bond is hereby discharged. criminal appeal preferred by the state' bearing criminal appeal no. 803 of 1998, is hereby dismissed. criminal revision application no. 511 of 1998 is hereby allowed and the remarks made against learned special public prosecutor in para-102 and 175(ii) are hereby expunged. criminal revision application no. 578 of 1998 preferred by the original complainant is hereby dismissed.