As far back as in the year 1957, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 observed that there may be an element of truth in the version of prosecution against accused and considering as a whole, ..

As far back as in the year 1957, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 observed that there may be an element of truth in the version of prosecution against accused and considering as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be convicted. It was further observed that degree of agony and frustration may be caused to the families of the victim by the fact that heinous crime may go unpunished but then the law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of acceptable evidence and in case of doubt, accused is entitled to get benefit of the same. Even if we take the most charitable liberal view in favour of the prosecution, all that we get is a suspicion against the appellants which cannot take the place of proof, therefore, appellants are entitled to get benefit of the same. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 2nd August, 1999 and 4th August, 1999 respectively convicting the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds are discharged.

Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 308 of IPC, but their conviction under Section 323 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof is maintained. The learned counsel for the appellant states, on instructions, that the appellants are read..

Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 308 of IPC, but their conviction under Section 323 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof is maintained. The learned counsel for the appellant states, on instructions, that the appellants are ready to pay Rs 25,000/- each, as compensation, which may be divided in equal share between the injured Narinder Singh and Mahinder Singh. The appellants, therefore, are given benefit of probation and are released on furnishing bonds of peace and good conduct for a period of one year each in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within three weeks. The appellants shall also pay Rs 12,500/- each, as compensation, to both the injured person, meaning thereby that each of the appellants shall pay Rs 12,500/- to Narinder Singh and Rs 12,500/- to Mahinder Singh by way of pay order in their respective names. The total compensation payable by all the three appellants would thus be Rs 75,000/-, which will be divided equally between Mahinder Singh and Narinder Singh. The pay order shall be submitted to the Trial Court along with the bonds. The learned Trial Judge shall accept the bonds, subject to the pay orders being submitted along with the bonds and shall release the pay orders to the injured Mahinder Singh and Narinder Singh. In the event of default in paying the compensation and/or furnishing the bonds in terms of this order, the appellants shall undergo RI for one year each.  The appeal stands disposed of. LCR be sent back, with a copy of this judgment.